Edward Balls: I commend my hon. Friend for the work that she has done for looked-after and missing children. The meeting that she held in the summer with colleagues, including the Under-Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) and me, was directly responsible for the inclusion of a looked-after and missing children's indicator in the local government indicator set. She has raised a particular point today and she is completely right to do so. We, too, have concerns about the number of children in care who are looked after out of area. We think that that currently involves about one third of children in care. In the Bill that we will publish later this week, we will require local authorities to secure a placement for a child within their own local authority area unless to do so would be inconsistent with the welfare of the child—for example, because of complex disabilities or because a child needed to leave an area because of domestic violence.

Tim Loughton: Key to safeguarding of vulnerable children is the engagement of dedicated social workers. Key to the findings in the Victoria Climbié report was the failure of health service professionals and others to engage with those social workers and to adopt a multi-agency approach. Why, then, has the National Children's Bureau today published a report on safeguarding arrangements that reveals that, five years on, 53 per cent. of hospitals do not even have hospital-based social workers, despite the Government's own guidance in the national service framework for children that was introduced after the Victoria Climbié case? How does the Secretary of State hope to remedy this situation, given the worsening vacancy rates for children's social workers revealed in the latest work force review? Has he had an opportunity to read the Conservative party's commission on social workers, "No More Blame Game", in which he might find some of the solutions?

Edward Balls: Standards have risen over the past decade and the reforms that I have announced to offer more personalised learning in schools and to give teachers more power to enforce discipline in the classroom, as well as our local strategies to tackle poorly performing schools, will all help to drive standards up even further, especially when it has been backed up by the doubling of real-terms per pupil spending since 1997.

Kevin Brennan: Far from giving my hon. Friend an ASBO, I will give him a gold star for being here so often. He is certainly not one of the persistent absentees—unfortunately sometimes, I hasten to add. If he looks at the international comparisons, he will find that this country's record is improving considerably. The reason for that is that, instead of concentrating on the meaningless and perverse incentive of looking at unauthorised absences, which simply means that schools can decide whether to authorise an absence, we are looking at overall absence. As a result of that, every day we have 75,000 more pupils in school than there were in 1997. Absence among persistent absentees fell by 10 per cent. last year, and 20 per cent. in the schools that we targeted, and it is down overall from 7.23 per cent. in 1995-96 to 6.44 per cent. last year.

Lindsay Hoyle: My hon. Friend the Minister is right that persistent truancy is a major problem, but there is also the problem of peer pressure on younger people to stay away from school, which leads to drink and drug problems and petty crime. What can we do to ensure that local education authorities across the country have the right funding and do not cut back on truancy and welfare officers? Giving them powers to act is important.

Kevin Brennan: It is very important. Through the national strategies and other schemes, we are concentrating on behaviour, truancy, peer mentoring, bullying and all the things that may impact on truancy. My hon. Friend is right that we should emphasise persistent absence because about 2 per cent. of pupils are responsible for over half of those unauthorised absences that we talked about earlier. Therefore, it is important that we focus on them. We have done that through concentrating on 400 schools with the most problematic records, with considerable success: there was a 20 per cent. reduction last year in persistent absentees from those schools.

Beverley Hughes: Yes. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his support and interest in the cadet forces and the work that they do with young people throughout the country. It is true that the Youth Opportunity Fund has produced some spectacularly good projects. One of the reasons for that is the fund's condition for the direct participation of young people in developing bids for projects, deciding how money will be spent and monitoring and overseeing that expenditure. Secondly, voluntary organisations such as the Sea Cadets, which can provide those structured and positive activities and trusted adults that we know are so important for the development of young people, have a key role.

Productive Activities

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Could the right hon. Lady comment on a problem that one of my tertiary colleges has? That college, in Cirencester, has responsibilities that come under her remit—such as the agenda for 14 to 19-year-olds, GCSEs and A-levels—but other responsibilities, such as vocational courses, come under the remit of the other Ministry concerned. Now that such responsibilities have been split up, it seems that the two Ministries do not have joined-up government thinking. What is her Department doing about that?

Philip Hollobone: Southfield school for girls in Kettering was designated a specialist sports college in 2004, yet three years later it is still struggling to find appropriate funding for its changing room facilities. A recent Ofsted report said
	"Accommodation is poor and a constraint on students' achievement."
	The school tells me that the provision of the proposed five hours a week of high-quality sport and activity will be impossible unless funds are found. Will the Minister assure the House that when designating schools as specialist sports colleges, he will also ensure that they have the funds that they need to provide the appropriate facilities?

Kevin Brennan: Yes, I can confirm that. Of course, we have also introduced responsibility for parents during the first five days of absence after a pupil is excluded from school and greater responsibility on schools, local authorities and pupil referral units to ensure that those young people are not languishing around the streets, as they were in the past, but are receiving an education, as they should be. We are making significant progress in that area.

Edward Balls: May I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the first topical question in this new Question Time slot, as part of our drive to modernise Parliament? As the first Department to take part in this innovation, we will do our best and see how it goes.
	This morning, my colleague the Minister for Schools and Learners laid a written statement before the House on school funding for 2008-2011. It, too, is a significant first. This is the first time that three-year revenue budgets have been set for schools. Together with recently-announced three-year capital allocations, it means that schools will be able to plan ahead more effectively. The overall level of school revenue funding will increase by 4.3 per cent. in 2008-09, 4.7 per cent. in 2009-10 and 5.3 per cent. in 2010-11, building on 10 years' strong growth in school funding as we move from below average to what is now above average performance on the road to a world-class education system in our country.

Tony Baldry: What responsibilities does the Department for Children, Schools and Families have for post-16 education, training and funding, and responsibilities does the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills have for those matters, and which Department has responsibility for further education?

Edward Balls: The opposite is true. A study published today by Keele university shows that nine out of 10 parents are happy with their children's schools. Peak attendance of private schools, as a share of all schools, was in 1990. It is true that private school attendance has risen in the past few years; that tends to happen when the economy is doing as well, as it has been. However, the vast majority of young people are in state schools. As I said earlier, the percentage of A-level A-grade passes obtained by state school pupils is rising, not falling. People will look at that and say that a state school education is not only the majority option, but increasingly the best option for young people.

Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be grateful for your guidance on a point of order of which I have given you notice. Last week, you issued some helpful guidance and advice to the House on various matters. Would you consider also giving guidance and advice on the working of Select Committees? It has always been my understanding that Select Committees are for holding the Government to account. I think that you would agree that it would be preposterous if the Foreign Secretary, who is due to address us in a few minutes, suddenly became the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
	This morning, I received a note—doubtless other Members did, too—that stated that on Wednesday, the Modernisation Committee is to hear evidence from the Leader of the House. It may not have escaped your notice that the Chairman of that Committee is the Leader of the House. That is preposterous and absurd, and I ask you to give careful thought about whether we should take possession of all Select Committees.

Keith Vaz: Is the Foreign Secretary satisfied with the operation of the entry clearance system in Islamabad during the crisis? I have had representations from constituents who have been unable to get visitors' visas while the situation is ongoing. Is he arranging for any further help to be given, resources-wise, to help the entry clearance operation?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Clear rules were set out, ironically, in Harare. In 2002, we showed that suspension is a tool to be used, and Zimbabwe was expelled from the Commonwealth. We have to judge each case against the criteria as it comes up, but I assure my hon. Friend that matters will be properly dealt with.
	The crisis in Pakistan raises many of the central questions facing UK foreign policy. I want to address, first, democracy-building and the rule of law, especially the situation in Iraq and the middle east; secondly, counter-terrorism, especially the situation in Afghanistan, which is a key test for the future of NATO; and thirdly, nuclear proliferation, especially the position of Iran. I will then address the important legislation we will consider on the future of the European Union and its institutions.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I just want to inform my right hon. Friend that I have had a very constructive meeting with Lord Malloch-Brown. I went to see him precisely because of his extensive knowledge about Africa and his role with the UN. I think he will prove an invaluable Minister.
	On the issue of Pakistan, will my right hon. Friend confirm our position with respect to continuing to fund the Pakistani Government and the development of their systems and democratisation process?

Hugo Swire: When the Foreign Secretary travels to that part of the world shortly, will he try to impress on the Israeli Government that they cannot continue to use the cutting off of energy resources into Gaza as a threat? Also, the choking off of Gaza is beginning to exacerbate an already tricky situation, so will he stress the importance of opening up the border with Gaza again, so that that population can continue to trade?

Malcolm Rifkind: The Foreign Secretary mentioned Kosovo, but just in passing. May I encourage him to accept that part of his job is not simply to deal with existing crises, but, along with our allies, to anticipate what may be a future crisis? Within the next month, a very serious crisis could arise about the status of Kosovo. We must try to learn the lessons of Bosnia that if the United States and the countries of western Europe do not try to reach a common position in advance and stick to it on both sides of Atlantic, then Kosovo, which is already a very difficult matter, could become incredibly worse.

David Miliband: I completely share the right hon. and learned Gentleman's position. As it happens, that issue comes a page or two later in my speech. I wanted to say that we need to find time for the House to discuss the conclusions of the troika mission, which concludes on 10 December. The Government have been meeting the Unity team from Kosovo, the Serbian foreign Minister—and the Greek foreign Minister, who was here last week. I believe that the following points could be shared ground between us.
	First, all sides have responsibilities during the current 120-day troika process. Secondly, we must keep open the long-term prospect that EU membership will be open to Serbia and to Kosovo as an incentive for their behaviour. Thirdly, we must continue to maintain international unity on the issue, but not at the price of a Russian veto on any decisions. Fourthly, the EU has major responsibilities in this area, not just in the traditional aspects of foreign policy, but in the deployment of a European security and defence policy mission into Kosovo. Fifthly, the Ahtisaari plan, on which 14 to 15 months of careful work were invested, provides the right basis if further compromise cannot be found by the troika over the 120-day period.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman might have seen the article I wrote with the French Foreign Minister saying that while additions to the Ahtisaari plan—Ahtisaari plus, if you like—should be on the table, we cannot compromise on the basic principles that Ahtisaari accepted. I completely understand his point that the matter requires further and detailed discussion in the House. The Minister for Europe and I are keen to have such a debate— [Interruption.]

David Miliband: I do not agree with any suggestion that the United Kingdom should give up its seat on the United Nations Security Council. More important, it is the policy of the Government not to give it up.
	There are also significant things that the treaty does not do. As Giuliano Amato, deputy president of the European Convention, has said,
	"If someone in the UK is calling for a referendum, that is not because the text we have in front of us is a Constitution."
	The German Conservative President of the European Parliament, who is from the sister party of Conservative Members here, has said
	"Since making the Charter legally binding and extending Community competence to JHA were two of the most important features of the original constitution, the deal struck by Tony Blair in June means that—for better or worse—much of its substance will simply not apply"
	in the United Kingdom.
	Let me say more about what the treaty does not do—about the myths that are simply that, myths. First, the treaty contains an explicit, legally binding guarantee that the UK's existing labour and social legislation will be protected. A legally binding protocol states that
	"the Charter reaffirms the rights, freedoms and principles recognised in the Union and makes those rights more visible, but does not create new rights or principles".
	A legally binding document also states
	"The Charter does not extend the ability of the Court of Justice of the European Union... to find that the laws, regulations or... provisions... of the United Kingdom are inconsistent with... fundamental rights".
	It is worth noting the CBI's statement in its lobby briefing that the commitments secured by the Government mean that it is time for us to move on to other big policy issues rather than becoming bogged down in this one.
	Secondly, the treaty extends our existing right to opt into co-operation on visas, asylum and migration to cover co-operation in police and judicial processes. It is right for the UK to decide what is in our interests, and to opt in where we want to and not opt in where we do not.

David Miliband: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman waits a moment.
	There is something else that the right hon. Gentleman, who speaks for the Opposition, said. In a book that deserves wider sales entitled, "Speaking with conviction"—not to be confused with another Conservative central office publication "Dealing with convictions" by Jonathan Aitken and Lord Archer—

William Hague: Mr. Speaker, may I begin by echoing what the Foreign Secretary said about the dedication, often bravery, and sometimes loss of life of people working in government service? May I also give him firm support for what he has said about recent developments in Pakistan? It is right that the international community should demand elections to be held on schedule, the separation of the presidency from the command of the army, the release of political detainees and an early end to emergency rule.
	It is obviously welcome that President Musharraf has taken one or two steps in the right direction in recent days, although elections held by 9 January will lack credibility unless opposition activists are out of jail and able to speak freely well before that date. We hope, as the right hon. Gentleman hopes, that today's Commonwealth meeting and the forthcoming Commonwealth conference will add to the pressure on the Government of Pakistan to make this possible.
	It will be no surprise to the Foreign Secretary that I agree with the tone and general direction of much of what he had to say, although one would never have thought that it was the speech of someone who thought we talked too much about Europe. Like him, we recognise that these are important days for the long-stalled middle east peace process. We support, as he does, the vision set out in the road map of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, both at peace, both prosperous and neither threatening the other's security. The conference in Annapolis later this month is the best opportunity in years to relaunch negotiations on a final settlement and we trust the Government will use British standing and relationships to the full to urge the fullest possible support of, and attendance at, the conference.
	We await with interest the Prime Minister's speech on international affairs this evening. The Foreign Secretary will forgive my hon. Friends and me for waiting to see whether all the varied comments of Lord Malloch Brown have been incorporated into the text. The noble Lord has described himself, modestly of course, as the
	"wise eminence behind the young Foreign Secretary."
	It must be so comforting to the Foreign Secretary to have that presence. He has said today in defence of his colleague that we must judge him by his actions rather than his words, which is what we all say about people who have made a string of verbal blunders. Unfortunately, according to  The Sunday Times "Gordon" will not be brave enough to sack him, which is all too believable after all the other things the Prime Minister has not been brave enough to do over the last few weeks, including calling a general election.
	The challenges of foreign policy are now such that there is vast scope, even where we agree, for the discussion and scrutiny of Government policy. Parliamentary accountability and scrutiny of foreign and defence policy are no bad starting points for this debate. The Government consultation paper on limiting Executive power over war powers and treaties is most welcome—we called for it in an Opposition day debate earlier this year—but of comparable importance once a conflict is under way is Parliament's ability to scrutinise its conduct, so far as the need for secrecy in military operations allows. The Government should now set an example by improving Parliament's ability to hold regular and informed debates on those conflicts where our troops are engaged in theatres of war. We have called for, and I call for again today, regular quarterly statements to Parliament on Iraq and Afghanistan, accompanied by the Government's definition of the military and political objectives in view, and our success, or otherwise, in meeting them. As things stand, the US Congress receives far more extensive evaluations and reports, and can hold far more informed debates on a regular basis than is possible in our Parliament. That the Prime Minister made a full statement on Iraq last month and is expected to do so on Afghanistan next month is proper and welcome, but when so much of our foreign policy, our national reputation and, above all, the lives of our servicemen and women are at stake, parliamentary scrutiny should be extensive and habitual, not limited and sporadic. I hope Ministers will commit themselves to such regular scrutiny as part of the constitutional innovations the Prime Minister is fond of proclaiming.
	The issue of scrutiny inevitably brings me back to a subject we have debated on several occasions in the last year and more: the need for a high-level and independent inquiry into the origins and conduct of the Iraq war. On the most recent occasion that that was debated in this House—11 June—Ministers accepted the principle of an inquiry, but insisted that the time to commence it was not yet. It will be important to revisit the subject in this Session, for recent events mean that the arguments for delaying the inquiry that we now all agree is necessary are shrinking by the day. By the end of this Session, important decisions made in the run-up to the war will be seven years distant, and it will soon become impossible for the events and discussions of those times to be recreated. By that time, too, only a small number of British troops—or a relatively small number, compared with the previous deployment—are expected to remain in Iraq and they should be in an overwatch role. In the meantime, memoirs, lectures and diaries of the time multiply, and often give controversial but incomplete assessments. It seems to me, therefore, that if we are ever to have a serious inquiry—which is so important to understand how we can improve the machinery of government, how mistakes made in Iraq can be avoided in Afghanistan, and how our troops can best be used in the future—it must begin sooner rather than later. If the Government do not grasp this issue and make their own proposals, it will return—and to their cost.
	Let me turn from accountability to the substance of what is happening in the theatres of war. The operations in Afghanistan remain one of the most challenging tasks NATO has ever taken on. Our troops have done an outstanding job there, always prevailing militarily in some of the most difficult terrain on earth, but unless there is a strengthened and better co-ordinated drive to deliver long-term strategic success in Afghanistan, those hard-won tactical successes will ultimately have been in vain. Some of the mounting difficulties are apparent: Taliban attacks have increased in scope; public support for the Afghan Government appears to have diminished; the contribution of NATO forces, even by some allies who have been highly present and active in recent years, is in doubt; and proceeds from drug trafficking are fuelling the insurgency. Do Ministers think there is a case for an immediate high-level independent assessment of the state of Afghanistan, similar to the Iraq Study Group in the United States, in order to acknowledge publicly that state of affairs and the need for reform? With or without such a study, we have been advocating for more than a year the appointment of a senior co-ordinator of the international effort in Afghanistan approved by the United Nations, the European Union and the United States, with a clear mandate to lead the aid effort on the ground and non-military aspects of the mission there. Has not the need for that now become urgent?
	Do we not need also a renewed effort to bring together the different military commands in Afghanistan and to remove more of the national caveats that lead to differing tiers of commitment from NATO forces there? I hope that the Government will be able to tell us more, perhaps in the Defence Secretary's winding-up speech, about what role the UK is now playing in the counter-narcotics strategy in Afghanistan, since we are no longer designated as lead nation. What alternative approaches to combating the spread of poppy cultivation are being thought about, evaluated or piloted? The problem is immensely difficult, but we cannot give up on it.
	Many more of our soldiers, of course, are now deployed in Afghanistan than in Iraq. We have supported the troop reductions in Iraq announced by the Government and we expect to support further reductions, although we hope that future announcements will be unencumbered by spin, double counting or any search for political advantage. The anticipated handover of Basra province to Iraqi forces is of course welcome, but there are, naturally, important questions about the role of our remaining forces in their overwatch capacity. Who will assess when the Iraqi army is capable of operating without British support? In what circumstances would our forces be redeployed, and will the remaining forces be able to protect themselves in all eventualities?
	Beyond the involvement of our own forces, we have a continuing responsibility to do all we can to assist the overall strategic position in Iraq. The progress made towards national reconciliation by the Government of Mr. Maliki is disappointing, and I hope that Ministers will intensify the pressure on Iraqi Ministers to make the necessary progress.

William Hague: My hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to the forces involved, and again I do that on behalf of the Front-Bench team. He is right to say that there must be no complacency. He has made the point about the specific situation in Basra, and I make the same point about the situation in Iraq overall: we have our responsibility to the overall strategic situation. Last year, responding to the Baker-Hamilton report, we called for the creation of an international contact group—a formal group with a permanent secretariat to ensure continuous international co-ordination on the crucial issues facing Iraq. The idea has not been taken up and much time has been lost. Beyond the periodic meetings of representatives of neighbouring countries and the major powers to discuss Iraq, there is no long-term strategy of political support for the Iraqi Government or their security forces.
	The difficulty of the issues in Iraq is now rivalled by the dangerously destabilising policies of the Government of Iran. I had hoped that the Foreign Secretary would say more about Iran. A new Security Council resolution on Iran is now six months overdue, as the last one expired in May. That resolution stated clearly that Iran must
	"suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities",
	but since then Iran has continued to install, test and feed nuclear material into its centrifuge facility and has reached, or is thought to be close to reaching, the threshold of 3000 centrifuges. The US Under-Secretary of State Nicholas Burns referred a few weeks ago to
	"an agreement that we have with the P5 of countries...made on September 28 in New York...if there is not substantial progress by the middle of the month of November... there will be a third Security Council resolution."

William Hague: I fear that the extension of qualified majority voting takes more and more decisions away from the people—not only the people of this country, but the people of the other countries of the European Union—by removing their veto, and that the progressive removal of decisions from national Parliaments and national Governments will ultimately create immense discontent with the functioning of the European Union across Europe. Our objection to that extension is therefore fairly fundamental.
	Third and most prominent on the list of concealments is the Government's faltering pretence that the European Treaty is not the constitution at all. In the summer recess, I tabled a written question to the Foreign Secretary, asking him to set out in full the similarities, differences, omissions and additions to the articles comprising the EU constitution and the new EU treaty. The European Scrutiny Committee produced a comparative table, and one might have thought that Foreign Office Ministers who wanted an open debate would do the same when asked to do so. Instead, the Foreign Secretary took well over a month to provide any answer at all, and then in effect refused to answer the question—that was long after Parliament had come back, so the recess is not an excuse—simply repeating instead the discredited mantra that the constitution concept is abandoned. That is an argument described by the European Scrutiny Committee as "likely to be misleading". In the words of Giscard d'Estaing on Saturday:
	"You wouldn't be honest to tell the British voters the substance of the text has changed—because the substance has not changed."

Paul Murphy: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I should like to talk about two peace processes to which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary referred: first, in the middle east; and, secondly, in Sri Lanka—perhaps the world's forgotten conflict. I want to tell the House how our own country can help in those processes by referring to what we did during the Northern Ireland peace process—the similarities can be helpful. On more than one occasion over the past hour or two, we have pondered how our country can help as members of the Security Council of the United Nations, members of the European Union, or whatever. It strikes me that our experiences in bringing peace to our own country can help considerably.
	Every peace process is unique, but our peace process in Northern Ireland was helped by experiences in South Africa. Twenty years ago, no one would have said that today we would have solved the Northern Ireland problem. In that part of our country, 3,500 people had perished and many tens of thousands had been injured, but today the problem is solved, to all intents and purposes, although of course there are political difficulties that must be overcome. Nevertheless, it can be helpful to look back over a number of years and apply some of the principles and experiences to Sri Lanka and the middle east. First, there was and is, happily, a bipartisan approach to Northern Ireland in this country. That does not always apply to peace processes in other countries, but it is a lesson that can be learned by them. Secondly, the involvement of the United States of America and the European Union were critical to our success in Northern Ireland. Thirdly, people wanted peace—they had basically had enough and realised that no one was going to win the conflict. When the Good Friday agreement was eventually signed, subsequent agreements worked on the basis of that one. Constitutional issues were resolved, power-sharing emerged, there was the necessary parity of esteem on all sides, and policing, human rights and equality issues were addressed. Those lessons can be learned elsewhere.

Michael Moore: It is a real privilege and pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). Throughout the House, we recognise his expertise on the matters he touched on and the unique perspective that his vital work and success in Northern Ireland allows him to bring to such debates. I am sure that his comments on Sri Lanka, the middle east and other issues will strike a chord throughout the Chamber.
	As others have noted, Remembrance day gave us an opportunity, as Members of Parliament, to join our local communities in paying tribute to those who gave their lives on behalf of our country. When I joined the commemorations in Melrose in my constituency, I was struck, as ever, by the dignity of the veterans on parade and the presence of so many young people from local organisations and with their families. Some were there to see their grandparents honour their comrades or to remember those who have fallen in more recent times. We were reminded today of the professionalism, bravery and commitment of all who serve in the name of Her Majesty and our country in our armed forces and, as the Foreign Secretary and shadow Foreign Secretary acknowledged, in the Foreign Office and other Departments, too.
	At Chatham House earlier this year, the Foreign Secretary made a brisk start to his new role when he collapsed the number of Foreign and Commonwealth Office priorities from 10 to three. Few of us would challenge the need to focus, or quibble with the three that he chose. We can all agree that tackling the causes and consequences of extremism, radicalism and conflict, establishing sustainable responses to climate change and building an effective European Union are central to Britain's role in the world. We can also agree that the trends in globalisation that present those challenges to us are gathering pace. Responding to them is no longer simply a matter of foreign policy, but requires proper integration with all our domestic policies. We also agree with the Foreign Secretary that influence and power around the world are changing out of all recognition. That reinforces the need for individual countries such as ours not to try any longer to deal with problems alone. Isolation from the phenomena of globalisation is not possible, and isolating ourselves from others as we attempt to confront those phenomena is also not possible, although that does not stop others trying on occasion.
	Our aim, surely, in our international policies is to make the world better not only for us in this country but for countless millions of others, too. Our foreign policy has to start with our national interests, but it must be more than that. It must remain fundamental to our values as a country that we accept our responsibilities to others to promote human rights and development, to tackle humanitarian and environmental disasters, to alleviate poverty and to reduce the risk of conflict. Much of that may be common ground, but we do not always find that the policy responses achieve that level of agreement.
	The risk of conflict is the most pressing challenge that we face, nowhere more so than with nuclear weapons. It may be 18 years ago this week since the Berlin wall began to come down, but the end of the cold war has not made the world a more certain or a safer place. Some strides have been taken with significant reductions in some arsenals, but the capability in the world remains terrifying and the risk of proliferation remains real, not least with the threat from Iran that has been discussed and the prospect that others in the region would follow suit if Tehran obtained a nuclear capability. We are at a crucial moment in our dealings with the Iranian regime, as the Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary have recognised. None of us is blind to the awful prospects if it were to acquire a nuclear weapons capability, but handling Iran requires more poise than we sometimes see in different parts of the world. The drumbeat for war in some parts of Washington has become sufficiently alarming for senior retired military figures, such as General Zinni and General Hoar, to speak out against it. We need more of that, particularly in this country. After Iraq, we must make it clear that another military conflict is not on the horizon. Our pressing need is to focus international efforts to sharpen both the sanctions and the incentives on offer, to build the diplomatic front to prepare the next, long overdue Security Council resolution and to make it clear to Iran that compliance is essential.
	The situation in Iran demonstrates that we are at a perilous moment in the world. It is essential that our strategic actions as a country do not tip things in the wrong direction. Our decision about the future of our nuclear capability is critical in that respect. In seeking to fulfil our most important duty—to protect the citizens of this country—we need to take steps to reduce the risk of nuclear war occurring. We must show leadership in the west to persuade others of the need both to reduce the nuclear threat, by getting rid of more of the current global arsenals, and to reduce the headlong rush elsewhere to acquire them. We cannot create the right conditions for force reductions if we pre-empt the debate by making the decision to replace Trident now, especially when the technical considerations show that we do not have to do so until well into the next decade.
	As a country, we have lost our focus on that first priority of arms reduction. We cannot afford the failure of another non-proliferation treaty review conference, as happened in 2005. We need a serious programme for 2010 and a serious statement of intent. That is why we have proposed a 50 per cent. cut in our nuclear capacity now. The rules of engagement also need to alter if we are not simply to see an escalation of nuclear tensions and the associated risks. The outcome of the 2010 talks will be the key moment to assess our future needs. This is not about postponing a decision on replacing on Trident, but about making it at the appropriate time.
	Another area where bad decision making will not be in Britain's interest is missile defence. The idea of protecting ourselves from missile attack is clearly attractive, but there is a great deal at stake, not least because of the way in which the United States is developing its proposals. There are already serious doubts about the technical aspects of the programme and the cost issues. They should give us pause for thought; but the failure to pursue the programme multilaterally is the most alarming and potentially the most dangerous aspect.
	It is not stretching things to say that we have had very little from the Government on the matter, other than the written statement from the Secretary of State for Defence just before the recess in July. Although it gave little away, it highlighted the fact that nothing has been agreed yet in NATO, only bilaterally, between the USA and individual countries such as the UK, Poland and the Czech Republic. However, missile defence has huge consequences for our strategic defence, both as a country and as part of our key alliances. At the very least, the priority should be to agree it with our NATO partners.
	We should also deal with countries such as Russia, whose hostile reaction was perhaps predictable but which can for once be understood. We are seeing a chain reaction, with Russian threats over the future of both the intermediate range nuclear forces treaty and the conventional forces in Europe treaty. We can deprecate the Russians for those actions, but none of us should doubt their intent or the seriousness of the consequences for global stability if the threats are carried out. The growing crisis requires an urgent multilateral response. If there is not to be a multilateral approach to the issue, Britain should play no further part in it.
	Our engagement in international alliances and institutions is central to how we cope—or ought to cope—with the many challenges that we face. Through our permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council, our key role in NATO and the Commonwealth we have responsibilities to work with others to tackle the many issues already raised today—the ongoing crisis in the middle east, the atrocities in Darfur and the appalling situation in Zimbabwe—and not to lose sight of the traumas in Burma. As has been discussed at length, the complex situation in Pakistan has special resonance for us, with our historic and current ties placing additional burdens on us to influence General Musharraf to honour the latest of his many pledges to hold elections and to lift the state of emergency.
	This country remains fully committed in neighbouring Afghanistan, where some unfortunate shortcomings by our partners in delivering what has been promised have become clear. We need to continue to overcome those shortcomings, because too much is at stake, and neither the Afghans nor the international community can afford to lose any of the many different battles being fought there.
	Likewise, in Iraq there is still a desperate need to recognise that Britain's presence has been a major part of the problem. Our priority must be to move on to a multilateral footing and to bring British forces home. Like the shadow Foreign Secretary, I urge the Government to ensure that, beyond this general debate, we will still have regular opportunities to debate matters relating to Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. We, too, believe that a public inquiry into how the debacle in Iraq began and unfolded is still urgently required.
	The conflict in Iraq highlighted difficulties with Britain's relationship with the present Administration in the United States, and there is much about that that we would like to see changed. That does not, however, undermine the basic fact that the ties that bind this country to America are stronger than the differences that can divide us. The United States remains our most important bilateral relationship as a country.
	However, it is the European Union that, on a multilateral basis, presents us with the opportunity to deal successfully with some of the most pressing issues facing us. Our membership of the EU recognises the need for Governments to work together to tackle problems that they cannot deal with alone. It is fundamentally important to us in terms of our economy, the environment and our security. The system needs to be reformed, however, and to adapt. Even its most supportive friends recognise the need for that.
	Enlargement has made the pressure greater, and there is general agreement across the House that more countries should join the EU, including Turkey and those Balkan states that are not yet members. However, there can be no hiding from the difficulties of achieving reform, as the crisis arising from the attempt to ratify the constitutional treaty illustrated. We have experienced deadlock on that for the past three years. With the new reform treaty, however, we can see significant and important changes, including an end to the flummery and trappings of a constitution, and an end to the conceit of a constitutional concept. All the old treaties that were to have been consolidated into that one document have now been stripped out, leaving us with an amending treaty along the previous lines. On key issues such as the charter, important changes have been made that have changed the nature of the treaty.
	We are invited to oppose the treaty on the basis of a checklist of issues about the full-time presidency, the high representative and qualified majority voting. But surely all of us—however strongly we might criticise the European Union—recognise that the proposals will improve the situation in Europe. The proposals on the presidency will make things more efficient; we shall no longer have the nonsense of passing on the baton every six months. The high representative will make co-ordination of our common foreign and security policy much more effective, and will ensure that common policies are much more clearly expressed. The proposals on qualified majority voting in areas such as humanitarian aid and intellectual property rights will surely be good moves for Britain. The opponents of the treaty fail to recognise the improvements in transparency, the greater co-decision making with the European Parliament, the better accountability through the enhanced involvement of national Parliaments such as this one, and the more effective decision making by, among other things, reducing the number of commissioners in Brussels.
	On that basis, we believe that the treaty will provide an improvement in the governance of the European Union that will be good for the United Kingdom. We anticipate many happy hours scrutinising the proposals in the House, but we do so from a standpoint of wishing to see the Bill passed. We also believe that it is Parliament's job to ratify the treaty. In our judgment, the changes made to create this amending treaty have altered its constitutional significance, so we should not hold a referendum on it.
	We have heard much about the issue of trust, which is a serious matter that should not be diminished. Maintaining the electorate's trust is not just about being able to explain what has changed and making clear how significant the changes are, as it is also tied up in the honesty of our debate. The debate in this country is not about the composition of the Council or the future of the high representative. The debate taking place in our constituencies up and down the land is about Britain's role inside Europe. It is about whether or not, after the all the changes overseen by the Conservatives for 18 years and a further 10 years of changes by this Government, we should remain part of the European Union.
	The Conservatives have drawn some lines in the sand that conveniently allow all the vetoes that were scrapped when the internal market was created under the Single European Act to be ignored. They also allow the changes under Maastricht, which introduced a common foreign and security policy and policies in justice and home affairs matters, to be left aside. Now the debate is apparently to be defined by how long the president is to sit in the chair of meetings. Any debate on the reform treaty will not be constrained by what is contained within it. The core of the debate across Britain is about staying in or leaving the EU. It is about accepting how important it is, notwithstanding all its flaws and the various attempts to improve it, or deciding to opt out and leave. Let us not have a phoney debate. Let us debate the merits of our relationship with Europe.
	On the Liberal Democrat Benches, we believe that there should be a referendum—but it should be on the real issue of either staying in or getting out of the EU. We are clear that, as a country, Britain's future lies at the heart of the enlarged and now to be reformed European Union. We must continue to be part of it, not marginalised on the peripheries. It is more than 30 years since Britain took stock of its membership of the then European Economic Community. That is why I, my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) and other Liberal Democrat Members will later this evening table our amendment on that specific issue alone. We invite others from all sides of the House to join us and help start the real debate about where Britain's interests lie.

Don Touhig: The international environment in which Britain finds itself is as difficult and complex today as it has been since the end of the cold war. The combined challenges of international terrorism, nuclear proliferation, regional instability and highly organised global crime make it more difficult than ever to plan and effect lasting solutions. The question is how we should devise policies to deal with those challenges in an increasingly uncertain world.
	First and foremost, we must be absolutely determined that, however daunting the scale of the problems we face, we will never lose sight of the sacrifices that we ask of our armed forces. Yesterday saw millions across Britain stand in silence to mourn and remember those who paid the highest sacrifice in serving their country. It is right that we should do that. It is absolutely right, too, that we have such expressions of our gratitude as the armed forces memorial in Staffordshire. At this point, I want to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who, as I know from my time as a Defence Minister, personally intervened to ensure that the appeal fund for that unique expression of our nation's gratitude would not founder. When there were difficulties, he certainly made sure that there was funding to enable that project to proceed.
	It is vital for our servicemen and women to know that they have full support and understanding back home for the difficult and dangerous work that we ask of them in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our armed forces need to feel valued, supported and thanked for all they do. I find it amazing that some, even in this House and perhaps in the other place, draw the conclusion that the morale of our troops is somehow helped by the incessant carping of politicians.
	Our armed forces are not cut off from what is happening in the news and at home. That imposes on us a responsibility to conduct our debate in a careful and constructive manner. There are issues that require discussion—supply of equipment to our troops, the need to honour the military covenant, and the defence budget. Those require detailed consideration in this place and elsewhere. However, the near hysterical attitude whipped up by some in Parliament and the media which portrays any failure or shortcoming as if it were a betrayal of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan makes me wonder about the motives behind it. Hysteria does not help our troops. What does help is looking carefully at issues such as equipment, the covenant and defence spending in a frank and constructive atmosphere that recognises that these are legitimate matters of concern which need to be debated in a sensible and constructive way to benefit our whole country.
	Britain will continue to face serious challenges. There is no place for moral or political cowardice. That means not reneging on our international commitments in Iraq or Afghanistan or stepping back from our efforts with our international partners to bring peace to the middle east. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out a clear strategy for his Government's approach in Iraq in a statement to the House on 8 October. If our ultimate goal is to help Iraq build and develop institutions that can sustain its people, it is crucial that we help with economic aid and the reconstruction that is needed. For that reason, I welcome his announcement that the provincial council has created the Basra investment promotion agency to stimulate private sector development and is also forming a Basra development fund to help small business and kick-start the economy. In the coming years, our ability to offer training, mentoring and support to the Iraqi people as they strive to rebuild and revive their economy will be just as important as the support that we have given to provide security over the past four years.
	The same point should be recognised when we are trying to build democracy and bring stability to Afghanistan. The scale of the problem that our troops are tackling there and the lessons of that country's history serve as a sharp reminder of the terrible and difficult task that we are addressing. British troops are involved in fierce fighting against the Taliban at a level of intensity perhaps not seen since the Korean war. Alongside that, we face the massive problem of the drugs trade there. Afghan opium and heroin production feeds millions of addicts worldwide. If the drugs trade is not tackled, all our hard-won successes of bringing democracy and stability to the country will be for naught.
	I am not saying that the drugs problem will go away overnight, and I am not saying that Britain alone can solve the problem. Primary responsibility rests with the Afghan Government, but we must do all that we can to stamp it out. The fight against drugs and the fight against terrorism go hand in hand. In the centre and north of Afghanistan, where the Government have managed to increase their authority, opium cultivation is diminishing, and that is good. However, the opposite trend is seen in southern Afghanistan, where our troops are deployed. In the volatile province of Helmand, where the Taliban insurgency is concentrated, opium cultivation in 2006-07 rose by 48 per cent. and more than 100,000 hectares are being used for poppy growing and opium cultivation, such is the scale of the problem that British forces are battling against in Afghanistan.
	If we can win that battle, however, we can strike a blow against those involved in the drugs trade here. The big question is: can we win? There are no finer forces than ours, and if peace and security are to be brought to that country, we certainly have a role to play.

Don Touhig: I would not suggest that we pack up and come home. That would not solve the problem. I accept that there is a problem, and I mentioned the increase in heroin production in the south of the country. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and others will be in discussions about how we can best help the Afghan economy to change over to other sources of production and income.
	I wish that our allies saw the position in Afghanistan in the same way as us. If they did they might come out of their barracks some time, but to date their response has been shameful. Indeed, they might as well have stayed at home for all the good they have been in many operations in Afghanistan.
	I believe that the future of peace in the world will be decided in the middle east. There is a critical need for talks about the two-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians. I am heartened by the constructive dialogue between Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas, but the international community really needs to support those efforts, and that means including both Iran and Syria. I was also heartened by the comments when opening the debate of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about Iran. As long as Iran continues to supply weapons, training and funding to extremists operating in Iraq, and to Hezbollah and others in Lebanon, that will prove impossible.
	Sooner or later, the Iranian regime will have to face a choice. Either it must form a constructive partnership with the international community, play a constructive role in the middle east and end its support for terrorism, or it must face political, economic and cultural isolation. The offer is there for the Iranians. They can begin by making commitments to bring their nuclear programme to an end. Syria faces the same choice: it must either act responsibly or hold back progress throughout the region.
	We face a new world, a world that is fractured, divided and uncertain, but more than ever we must be sure that we are united in fighting global terrorism in all its forms, or we will have no world in which we can sustain our lives. The solution, however, is not a military one alone. The problems that we face are difficult. Sometimes the struggle seems intimidating and the rewards initially not very great, as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn). However, I believe that in the long term those rewards will be great. These are struggles that are worth enduring, because the prize is worth winning for the whole of humanity.

Michael Ancram: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), whose sincere support for our armed forces, and indeed our veterans, is recognised in all parts of the House.
	I want to make a few brief points arising from both the Gracious Speech and today's debate. Once again it was confirmed to us that Parliament, not the people of this country, would be asked to approve the European treaty. I cannot think of a British Government who have shown greater contempt for the people of this country. They are motivated purely by fear: knowing that the British people would reject this surrender document, they deny them the promised referendum for which they—the Government—were given a mandate at the general election. Perversely, they have absolutely no mandate, not even in a footnote in their manifesto, to use their parliamentary majority to ratify what I believe is a constitutionally subversive treaty.
	In my view, the British people will never accept this gateway to the country called Europe. I was delighted to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the shadow Foreign Secretary, say that the Conservative party would not do so either. He suggested that nearer the time he might consult on the best way forward. May I give him a little premature advice? I believe that if by the time of the next election the treaty is already implemented and a unilateral retrospective veto cannot undo it, we must still have a referendum. However, the price of not having that referendum now is that the one we do have will need to be more fundamental. It must be not an in-and-out referendum of the sort suggested by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, but a referendum seeking a mandate either to renegotiate for an agreed Europe of sovereign nations—which is what we originally joined—or, if our partners refuse that, to renegotiate, quite calmly, the status of the United Kingdom within Europe.
	For some months I have been unable to fathom what British national interest was being served by our troops' remaining in Iraq, and I have to say that I am glad they are now being drawn down. I have nothing but admiration for the courage and dedication of our armed forces and for what they have achieved, but at the same time I, too, am absolutely certain that we have no right to ask them literally to risk life and limb without a clear purpose for doing so.
	In 2003, the Queen's Speech spoke boldly of our "rebuilding" Iraq, but no more. We now talk about helping with "political reconciliation". The truth is that once the same Shi'a in Basra whom we liberated from tyranny began to turn their guns on us, we became part of the problem, rather than the solution. Whatever the official explanations may be, I believe that moving to overwatch at Basra airport effectively recognises that. The fact that there has been so much less violence since that move was made illustrates that point.
	I would like to see—it is not the first time that I have said this in the House—all our troops coming home now. If they do and when they do, we should give them a great homecoming of appreciation for what they have done on our behalf, but the truth is that we cannot solve Iraq. Nor can America. In the end, Iraq is going to have to solve Iraq, ideally with the combined help of its regional neighbours, which have a direct interest in a stable Iraq: Turkey, which cannot countenance the break-up of Iraq and the emergence of an autonomous Kurdistan; Syria, which is currently struggling economically under the burden of 1 million Iraqi refugees, with more coming across its border every day; Saudi Arabia, which is concerned at the potential threat of a Tehran-driven Shi'ite satellite; and Iran, which is anxious to avoid another Sunni-Shi'a conflict. The Baker-Hamilton report pointed the way to that and the Government should now press hard for its implementation.
	Afghanistan is different. There, our overstretched but outstanding armed forces are fighting for a clear British national interest: to prevent the re-establishment of a Taliban-controlled country from which al-Qaeda could again with impunity plan and launch terrorist attacks against the west. As has been sad, our troops have an enormously daunting task. It is not unlike driving water uphill, only to watch it flow back down again after we leave. We need to give our troops all the support that they need, both in manpower and equipment, and in letting them know that they are fighting on behalf of the direct interests of this country. At the same time we need to understand that sponsoring a local tribal leadership, an age-old habit of British Governments in the past, and winning the battle of hearts and minds could be as important as the military campaign itself. Those two must go hand in hand.
	We should not underestimate the importance of our relationship with Pakistan either. The traffic between our two countries is significant. An Islamist, nuclear-armed Pakistan, which is not an impossibility, would be an enormous threat to international peace and security, with serious domestic implications for us, too. When we look at what is happening there, we must beware risking throwing the baby out with the bath water in our reaction to current political events.
	From Lebanon to the west bank, I have rarely seen the middle east so explosively volatile. Polarisation has led to radicalisation and radicalisation has led to confrontation. As we have heard, the west is now backing one side and Iran is backing the other, and each of us is providing them with the arms for violence in future. Military action is not and has never been the answer in that region. Israel's war in Lebanon last year ironically left Hezbollah greatly strengthened and now Lebanon teeters on the brink of internal conflict again. Palestinian opinion is dangerously polarised. It is dangerous because confrontation will not achieve for Israel the security that she rightly requires; nor will it achieve a viable and autonomous Palestinian state living peacefully alongside Israel. My fear is that it will ensure only another generation of suffering and death.
	The proposed meeting at Annapolis fills me with foreboding because failure would be disastrous, yet it is very difficult to see where success can be achieved. In a conference of that sort, there are only a number of ways in which there can be success. They can do one of three things. They can crown a previously negotiated agreement; they can provide a forum for negotiation; or they can launch a new process. In this case, as far as I can see, there is no previously negotiated agreement to crown. Negotiations without a unified Palestinian team representing all parts of Palestinian opinion ultimately would be self-defeating. Merely to exchange a few aspirations and economic packages will in the end satisfy nobody.
	The real way forward is, as it has always been, through comprehensive dialogue, including all the elements that inevitably must be part of a lasting solution: Hamas as well as Fatah; Hezbollah as well as Signora and Hariri; Syria as well as Egypt and Jordan—they are all ready to talk. I know that; I have talked to them. Without undeliverable preconditions, I believe they should now be invited to join that comprehensive dialogue. If Israel and the United States cannot find their way to inviting them, we should.
	The world is changing. The days of undiluted hard power solutions of "shock and awe", which we will all remember from the beginning of the Iraq war, are passed, not least because we are learning that they did not achieve the purposes that they set out to achieve. In the words of the current Lord Chancellor, it would be "completely nuts" to use hard power against Iran. In these days of the Shanghai Co-operative Organisation, of the powerful Russian energy lever and of the clash of ideologies, my view is that we need to dust down our old manuals on soft power backed by hard. We used to be rather good at that. We had better start being rather good at it again soon.

Keith Vaz: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), the distinguished former shadow Foreign Secretary. It is no surprise to me that even though he ended by talking about the middle east peace process and Iraq—very important foreign policy issues—he began, of course, with the Conservative obsession with Europe. I have attended 20 Gracious Speech debates—I have not heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman speak on those matters 20 times in those debates, although he has of course spoken on them on many occasions—and it is interesting that the Conservative party policy on Europe tends to harden each time we have a further debate on foreign policy.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman always mentions my  Beano moment; my JFK moment. I will remind him of his great moment as shadow Foreign Secretary, when he went round the country on the back of a lorry trying to save the pound. I am not sure whether that was as successful as my campaign as Minister for Europe to try to make Britain more aware of what was happening in the EU. It is sad, however, that these debates are dominated by this "fear" of the EU.
	When the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a Minister in a Conservative Government, he signed away vetoes, made agreements and stood up for British interests, in exactly the same way as Labour Ministers have done over the last 10 years. Perhaps it is because the Conservative party has no cause that it has to pick up on Europe. That is why I am pleased that we will have substantial debates on the European Union in the forthcoming parliamentary Session. I am glad that the Government have agreed to make so much time available for proper scrutiny of the European reform treaty because that will be the opportunity for the Opposition to table amendments calling for a referendum or to set out their alternative vision of what they believe Europe should be doing. Those crucial issues affect the success of our nation.
	Of course, we have to reform how the EU operates because a Europe of six is quite different from a Europe of 27. Enlargement has transformed the European Union—how it functions, how its decisions are made, how it makes the regulations that inevitably come before this House to be scrutinised and that mean that our country inevitably must deal with our European colleagues—so it is vital that we have such debates.
	I see that the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands) is present. He has been a great champion of the enlargement process. No Member on the Opposition Benches has done more than the hon. Gentleman to champion the rights of the eastern European people who have come here since 1 May 2004. Enlargement has been good for us—there have been benefits—and, because of that, when the crucial decisions are made, we must have a Europe that is much more efficient and effective. Therefore, we will have to examine the treaty in great detail, and some of the issues mentioned by the Liberal Democrats spokesman, the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore), might well have to be discussed much more openly. Are those who speak against the reform treaty against Britain belonging to the EU? Is that why they speak so passionately against the reform treaty? There will be an opportunity to examine such concerns, and all the political parties will need to be honest and open about their true feelings.
	A few weeks ago, the Chancellor set out in a paper proposals to reform the banking system, and they are now part of the Government's legislative programme. Seventeen years ago, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International was closed by the then Chancellor and Governor of the Bank of England because it was alleged that the BCCI was full of fraud. I well remember 5 July 1991 when the bank closed: thousands of people gathered outside BCCI branches throughout this country and the world—it was the sixth largest private bank in the world—and the then Chancellor and Governor refused to intervene to save the depositors from losing their money. That is why I am so delighted that, 17 years later, the lessons of BCCI have been learned and there are proposals to reform our banking system so that if a bank is in distress and there is a risk that the customers will lose their money, the Bank of England and the Government will be able to intervene and guarantee those people their savings up to a certain amount. The Chancellor mentioned a figure of £100,000, although for Northern Rock the figure is smaller at £35,000. What has finally happened 17 years after the liquidation of BCCI, the largest liquidation in history? The liquidators, Deloitte and Touche, have made millions of pounds, which has all come out of the bank, and the creditors will have got 84 per cent. of their money back, so the original reason why it closed has, of course, disappeared. I hope the banking reforms will reassure people that the Government are serious about ensuring that if such a situation arises again there will be intervention and people's savings will be protected.
	The Government have announced that they will publish a counter-terrorism Bill. In doing so, they rightly did not pre-empt or pre-judge the discussion started by the Prime Minister's statement of July this year that he wanted there to be a debate in the country about the terrorism proposals. As Members know, the Home Affairs Committee is currently investigating the question of the 28-day detention period. The Government have not set out a time limit in respect of the proposed legislation. I welcome that, because if Parliament is to discuss these issues and the Select Committee is to investigate them, it is important that we have a proper debate before the Government reach a conclusion. That is the right approach to adopt and, to be frank, quite different from the one adopted a few years ago when the Government set out their stall with 90 days and did not change their position. That ended in a Government defeat on the Floor of the House and the House adopting the 28-day limit.
	The Select Committee is in the middle of its inquiry and has taken evidence from Liberty and from Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. We have had the Home Secretary before us, and tomorrow the shadow Home Secretary and the Liberal Democrat spokesman will give evidence. The head of MI5 has agreed to give private evidence to the Committee in a week's time, along with the Director of Public Prosecutions and the former Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith. We shall conduct a proper investigation and listen to the views of every stakeholder before coming to a conclusion. It would be wrong of me, as Chairman of the Committee, to pre-empt what it will say, but we are willing and eager to engage with the Government in this important process.
	Only a week ago, in his private briefing to newspaper editors in Manchester, the head of MI5, Jonathan Evans, talked about the serious threat that people in this country face. He said that the number of terrorist suspects has increased from 1,000 to 2,000. The threat is serious, and of course Parliament takes it extremely seriously, but it is important that the case be made before the Committee. We look forward to hearing from him, albeit in private, so that we can discuss the matter and conclude our report. I hope, and I think the Committee hopes, that we shall be able to do so before Christmas, which will give the Government and the Home Secretary an opportunity to bring forward their proposals, so that we can have a proper debate early next year on whether the detention period should be extended. That is the third most important limb of the Government's legislative programme.
	I welcome the Gracious Speech, which is full of important Bills that I believe will consolidate this Government's connection with the British people. I hope that, in the coming months, we will continue to debate the issues that I have mentioned, particularly Europe and counter-terrorism, with the vigour and robustness that we associate with the House.

Nicholas Soames: My hon. Friend is right. He led an excellent Westminster Hall debate in which he laid out clearly the great disadvantage that will accrue to British industry as a result of this.
	I understand that only nine days after the appearance of an advertisement in  The Sunday Times for a new head of DESO, the permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence was summoned to No. 10 to be told that DESO was to be closed down. The permanent secretary then informed Sir Alan Garwood, the head of DESO, who was not able to inform his staff until the next day. There was no consultation, not even with Sir John Rose, the chief executive of Rolls-Royce or Mike Turner, the chief executive of British Aerospace, and it is my strong belief that the Secretary of State for Defence was himself not fully consulted. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that was also the case when the Prime Minister announced in Iraq the return from there to this country of 1,000 men, most of whom were already back here.
	I would like the Secretary of State to answer some questions. Was he told and consulted in full about this decision before it was taken? What was his response? Was Lord Drayson, the former excellent Minister for Defence Equipment and Support, consulted? I rather think that he was not, given that he has since left the Government. The point about DESO was that it was an extremely efficient, effective and vigorous promoter of its operations, quite unlike the dud organisation into which it has now been shunted.
	I understand that the Prime Minister decided to do this to appease someone called Baroness Vadera, who I am sorry to report to the House is apparently a Minister responsible for promoting Britain's interests overseas. One can only conclude of her determination to get rid of DESO that she must fashionably dislike this country and its institutions, and that she is clearly careless of our national interest. I suggest that the House keeps a careful eye on her. Perhaps she should return to her bank in the City.
	It is hard to believe that the Government could have taken so bovine a decision. Wilfully undermining one of the most successful agencies in Government, breaking it up and removing it from the Ministry of Defence is a foolish thing to do, and this Government will come to regret it.

David Crausby: The operation in Basra was certainly very different. History has demonstrated that there has been a different result there.
	On whether there should be an inquiry, I want to make some points about our commitment in relation to our resources. We must decide to cut on our commitments or increase our resources; doing nothing is not an option. In my view, the wise choice would be to cut our commitments and increase our resources at the same time. Although in recent years we have certainly increased defence spending in real terms, we have done so at a time when the opportunities for new and improved defence technology have grown enormously. It is absolutely right to spend on new and exciting resources—new aircraft carriers, submarines, Snatch vehicles and fighter planes. We must stay at the forefront of defence technology. However, those new and effective assets must not come at the expense of our people on the ground. There is much to do if we are to house and reward our people at a level that will recruit and retain them.
	Like any others, defence resources are scarce and expensive, so they must be used to our best advantage. In consequence, regardless of the history, we have a responsibility to review our strategic position continuously. We should constantly ask this question: are we helping the situation or contributing to the problem? Although it makes no sense to name a firm date for withdrawal, it is sensible for us progressively to reduce our forces with the firm intention of leaving things to the Iraqis. If we do not make it clear to the Iraqi Government that they must soon deal with their own security, they will never be ready to run their own affairs.
	Afghanistan is a completely different kettle of fish. The fear is that the two operations are frequently seen as the same in the public eye. After 11 September, the Americans were justified in demanding from the Taliban the cessation of support for al-Qaeda, and they were right to invade Afghanistan. Appropriately, we supported them and we should continue to do so because the democratic world would be foolish in the extreme to allow the Taliban back to control a nation state and run the affairs of the people of Afghanistan.
	The NATO Council was justified when for the first time in its history it invoked article 5 of the treaty in defence of the USA. Let me remind the House of how article 5 begins:
	"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all".
	Those are fine words, but NATO membership and the responsibilities that go with it will require the delivery of more than fine words in Afghanistan. There can be no place for a two-tier NATO, with some nations prepared to do the trouble-free bits while others, such as the British and the north Americans, are expected to bring home dead soldiers.
	In the light of the current support of some of our European neighbours, we have to wonder what would have happened if, during the cold war years of the Soviet Union, the Russians had invaded mainland Europe. Would some of our so-called NATO allies have hesitated until the tanks ranged at their own borders before they were prepared to put their forces in harm's way? Who knows? We will never answer that question. However, another question arises: if NATO cannot deliver significant military force from countries such as France and Germany on the back of an article 5 declaration, what is the purpose of NATO at all? After all, Afghanistan is a relatively small task when compared to the threat formerly from the Soviet Union.
	If nothing else, NATO's performance in Afghanistan is already convincing me that we cannot rely on a European defence force for anything but peacekeeping and parades. We must remain masters of our own destiny in military matters. I am afraid that the defence of our liberty will never come cheap; however, the failure to be ready, willing and able could be very expensive indeed.

Richard Spring: We have touched on the fact that a lot of time has been spent talking about the European treaty, and I want to make this basic observation. The whole issue of a constitution or a non-constitution arose from the Laeken declaration, put together by the European Council in December 2001. It is worth reminding ourselves of the remit inherent in that declaration. It called for the clarifying, adjusting and simplifying of the division of competencies between the EU and member states and the addressing of the democratic deficit to make the EU more democratic, transparent and efficient. It also called for the EU to be brought closer to its citizens. On the four treaties, the declaration states that
	"If we are to have greater transparency, simplification is essential".
	What a long road we have travelled since that remit. The declaration asked exactly the right questions for the long-term viability of the European Union, but one can see that the EU is very far removed from them. The idea that the treaty is bringing the peoples of Europe closer to the structures now being proposed is preposterous.

Richard Spring: My hon. Friend makes his point well, and I absolutely agree with him.
	In the next fortnight, Mohamed el-Baradei will report on the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency on Iran's nuclear developments. The vote on a possible third UN Security Council resolution for sanctions will be called if the IAEA and Javier Solana conclude that Iran has failed to make progress on the work programme agreement of last summer. When I was Iran recently, I was told that it would be fully compliant. However, since then—and we are at a critical juncture—President Ahmadinejad has hinted that Iran is now capable of producing 3,000 centrifuges, which would be an important step in the process of enriching uranium and would lead to the possibility of a nuclear bomb. Iran has indicated that it will expand that capability considerably.
	If we go down the route that I have mentioned, there will be huge problems for us and the region. Let us consider, for example, the reactions of two of Iran's neighbours, which are concerned for different reasons. Saudi Arabia has unveiled a Gulf states initiative for all users of enriched uranium to ensure security of supply for civilian nuclear power programmes and to prevent the diversion of uranium into nuclear weapons programmes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) mentioned, Russia has proposed to be a guarantor of the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme, with the possibility of some exchange resulting from America's proposal on ballistic missile defences. However, even before the imminent IAEA report, the United States has announced a series of sanctions against the Iranian revolutionary corps as a proliferator of nuclear weapons, and against the al-Quds force division as a terrorist organisation. We therefore have in prospect a freezing of assets, as well as the ban on US citizens doing business with three Iranian banks. However disagreeable it may be to us, the problem is that that sort of action bolsters the reputation of President Ahmadinejad, whose supporters did badly in the local elections nearly a year ago, and who got into office in the first place promising higher employment and prosperity, which has unfortunately completely failed to materialise. There is petrol rationing, amid other signs of a truly sclerotic economy. However, the country is insulated by oil at $100 a barrel, as it has one of the highest reserves in the world. It has become fashionable in Iran to blame Britain, in particular, for its difficulties; that is because of our rather chequered historical relationship with the country.
	If Iran does take the alarming route to a nuclear capability, not only its neighbours have reason to be concerned. President Ahmadinejad's recent comments on Israel and his repulsive observations about the holocaust make Israel understandably anxious. The United States has indicated that Iranian weaponry is being used against soldiers in Iraq. We do not know what the exact provenance of that weaponry might be, but it is undoubtedly being used, and the United States may use that as an opportunity for some sort of attack on Iran in due course. Before that ever happened, we would do well to consider the consequences. Iran has sophisticated weaponry and is most unlikely to fail to react. What could it do? It could close the Strait of Hormuz, which is only 34 miles wide and through which 20 per cent. of the world's oil travels each day, or even attack some of the Gulf oilfields. A substantial reduction in oil supplies to the world would have dire economic consequences. We must also ask ourselves whether surgical strikes could be effective. Would the Iranians manage to retaliate further afield? If there was no UN mandate because of objections from Russia and China, how would parts of the Islamic world react in such an eventuality? If there was a UN resolution, how would enforcement be viewed when non-compliance is accepted elsewhere in the region? There are huge dangers, but they have to be balanced against the consequences of Iran acquiring a nuclear device.
	If there is to be a successful dialogue, the United States will be the key player, as always in this region. Iran has been branded part of the "axis of evil" and has had conditions imposed on it by the United States that make it difficult for any such dialogue to proceed—namely, the cessation of any kind of nuclear enrichment and ceasing to sponsor state terrorism. The simple reality is that no Iranian politician, however moderate, would accept such conditions, so any dialogue that is to work must be based on a different sort of premise. The grim reality is that we have very little insight into the different elements of the country's ruling group. We have no real intelligence on the ground and can make judgments based on assumptions but not hard evidence. Nevertheless, we must try to identify those in Iran who are more moderate and can persuade the more aggressive to get into some sort of dialogue with us. If we fail, the consequences for Iran, the region and the rest of the world will be very serious. The next few weeks will be crucial. No option should be dismissed in these alarming circumstances, but whatever course we pursue to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear device, we must do so in a tough but calculated and measured way, because we need to assess very clearly what the consequences would be.
	The importance of the security and stability of Israel, as a homeland for the Jewish people, is universally accepted in this House, and so it should be. However, we are entitled to ask whether Israel is more secure today than it was, say, 10 years ago; I fear that the answer is no. I welcome the fact that Mr. Olmert and President Abbas appear to be moving towards an understanding. There are many contentious issues to be addressed, and the question is whether either of them can really deliver. I fear that there will be no viable two-state solution and no ultimate security for Israel unless—this is a very disagreeable proposition—Hamas is ultimately part of any deal agreed between Mr. Olmert and President Abbas, because any such agreement will have to be acceptable to the majority of Palestinians; indeed, President Abbas has talked about having a referendum to resolve the situation. As a long-term objective, the inclusion of Hamas in any talks will have to be entertained.
	Mention has been made of the Annapolis conference. We must applaud that initiative. There are dangers in terms of whether it will be successful and expectations that may be too high, but it is good to know that Turkey is constructively involved. Yesterday, President Shimon Peres arrived in Ankara—President Abbas arrives today—for what the Turkish press describe as a mini-Annapolis. I hope and believe that Annapolis must succeed, but it should do so by being the first stage in a process of negotiation encompassing not only the Israelis and Palestinians but the broader region. If Annapolis fails, the pessimists will feel vindicated. The Palestinians naturally want a freeze on settlement construction, prisoner release and fewer roadblocks, while Israel understandably wants guaranteed security. All those aspects are hugely difficult. It may be wise to suggest that Annapolis is not some kind of finality but part of a process on the long road towards a resolution of the problem.
	Looking beyond the direct Israel-Palestine relationship, there is a wider picture to consider. Israel has good working relationships with its neighbours, Jordan and Egypt, but there is a lively debate in Israel about its relationship with Syria. The Golan Heights, which are legally Syrian, are occupied by Israel. They have no strategic value any more, but for Syria this is a crucial matter. Seven years ago, a deal was nearly struck between the then Syrian President and the Israelis. Syria has offered normalisation and an exchange of ambassadors, and the Israelis should road-test that. I understand the difficulties, given the relationship between Syria and Hezbollah, but the prize would be a normalisation that would enhance the possibility of Israel's security. Syria is a secular country where religious minorities are protected; indeed, it currently has many refugees from Iraq.
	As my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary said, the middle east is of pivotal importance, not only for the region itself but for the world at large. Unfortunately, our reputation has been considerably degraded in the past decade. Our longstanding and firm friendship with the United States has not been successfully deployed. Annapolis beckons, and we all hope that it will work. It is vital that we should assist in this process in any way that we can. The peoples of the middle east—the crucible of our civilisation—whether Jewish, Muslim or Christian, do not deserve to continue in an atmosphere of such fear and insecurity.

Frank Cook: I would rather get to my other point, if I may, which relates to the EU reform treaty and the issue of the proposed referendum.
	I had the unique experience of chairing over a period approaching two years every meeting between the House of Commons and the House of Lords when our representatives came back from Europe to report to both Houses, and I have to say that precious little attention was given to the reports by Members of the House of Commons. I was there every time, and as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when you occupy the Chair, you have to stay awake and listen to what is being said. It is a difficult job sometimes. I would vote for the reform treaty, but I believe that we ought to pay attention to the calls for a referendum, and I let me tell the House why.
	I received representations from an area called Norton in my constituency, which wanted a parish council. I said, "If you want a parish council, have a plebiscite." They did. The people turned it down; they did not want a parish council. People in Billingham said that they wanted a parish council. I told them to have a plebiscite. They did, and it was approved. They now have a parish council. I seem to remember that a gentleman who used to be Deputy Prime Minister had one on the north-east regional assembly, which went down. If we can have referendums on parish councils and regional assemblies, why on earth cannot we have a referendum on this point and trust the electorate, if we get the message over? At the moment, the ground is conceded to right-wing Tory rags. If we had a referendum, I would vote for the treaty and campaign for it, and would be proud to do so. For heaven's sake, let us have some common sense and trust the people of this country. They pay our wages, and some of us have been representing them for 25 years.

Robert Walter: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Frank Cook), who I know has done a tremendous amount of work on Afghanistan, which I shall deal with in a moment. He and I have discussed the matter before and I fear that he might not agree with everything that I have to say.
	I want to start off by dealing with two defence matters that relate specifically to my constituency, although they both involve enormous amounts of defence expenditure. The first is the AirTanker project, for which a company in my constituency—Cobham Air Refuelling and Auxiliary Mission Equipment—provides all the gizmos that enable those tankers to refuel aircraft in flight. The company, which has, essentially, almost a world monopoly, developed the system in the 1930s and has gone on to produce a piece of equipment that is second to none anywhere in the world.
	My concern, and that of my constituents, is that we have been almost at the signature point of the contract, which is allegedly worth about £13 billion over 27 years —it is a private sector partnership—but we are still not there. That is giving some cause for concern. What is the delay in the Ministry of Defence in signing off the contract?
	There are international implications, too. The configuration of aircraft—the A330 Airbus, with Rolls-Royce engines and other pieces of equipment—has already been bought by and is flying in the Australian force. The United Arab Emirates has already signed up for that configuration. A similar configuration is flying in the German air force. We are on the verge of reaching a bidding round for that equipment for the United States—not the 15 aircraft that the RAF is talking about, but hundreds. The configuration is in with a good chance, but if the British Government have not even signed it off, will not the United States Government question whether it is as good as we claim it is? The Government have a duty to act quickly to sign off that contract and to get those aircraft flying in the RAF.
	The other constituency matter that I want to mention is the defence training review. It is another major public-private partnership, which essentially involves the privatisation of six defence colleges, one of which is in my constituency—the Defence College of Communications and Information Systems. I do not want to reopen the argument about whether it should be privatised, or whether all six defence colleges should be moved to one site at St. Athan in Wales. However, I want to flag up that in the Blandford area of Dorset, where the camp has an economic footprint of nearly £300 million a year according to the regional development agency, we are anxious that we should keep the high-tech presence. If it remains a military establishment, as the Government have made the commitment that it will, it is essential that it should remain the home of the signals. It should be the centre of signals activity, with the signals officer in chief based there, and other signals regiments should be brought on to that site so that it maintains that part of the knowledge economy that is essential to the local Dorset economy.
	I said earlier that I wanted to talk about Afghanistan and I want to consider the question of who pays. We all know that the international security assistance force and NATO forces are paid for by the Government and by our taxpayers and those of the other countries that are part of that international force. Obviously, a major contribution is made by the United States. However, have we ever asked ourselves who is paying for the other side? Who is financing the Taliban and the insurgents? We are paying them, too. They are getting their money from the heroin on the streets of this country, of other countries of western Europe and of the United States.
	Some 90 per cent. of the heroin on our streets comes from Afghanistan. Not only the heroin costs—that goes somewhere in the black economy—but we as taxpayers face the costs to the criminal justice system, the health care system and the benefits system. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) wrote a pamphlet earlier this year based on his experience as a distinguished lawyer and district judge. He estimated that the cost of narcotics to the British taxpayer was about £23 billion a year. What is the cost of the heroin? What is the cost of the poppy crop in Afghanistan? I asked questions of the Department for International Development last year, and I was told that the amount collectively made by Afghan farmers from poppies at the farm gate was $600 million. The poppy crop has expanded since then, and it is probably worth an estimated $1 billion. Compared with the £23 billion cost to the United Kingdom—never mind all the other countries that are receiving this poppy product, heroin—that is a drop in the ocean.
	My contention—I was surprised to see it on the front page of  The Guardian coming from the mouth of Lord Malloch-Brown—is that we in Europe have a great deal of expertise in buying crops from farmers that we were simply going to destroy. We called it intervention under the common agricultural policy. We then developed a policy of paying farmers to grow nothing at all; we called it set-aside. Is it beyond the wit of man to apply our great expertise from the common agricultural policy to the Afghan poppy crop? If it costs us $1 billion collectively among all our allied nations, that is probably worth it. If it costs us $1 billion this year, next year and the year after, I would have thought that that was a price worth paying.

Robert Walter: The hon. Gentleman helps my point. We would then provide an alternative livelihood to the Afghan poppy farmer that he would not have if we simply destroyed his crop or tried to persuade him with a packet of seeds to grow some alternative crop for which there is no market mechanism.
	We have to work constructively first, to ensure that we preserve the livelihood of Afghan farmers and their families and secondly, to create the market mechanisms for the alternative crops that I know they can grow. However, that will take time and patience on our part, as well as money. We need to commit that money, because if we cut off the money supply of the Taliban and the other insurgent groups, we will have gone a long way towards winning the battle in Afghanistan.
	In the last few minutes left, I want to refer to Europe—not to the treaty or the referendum, but to the common foreign and security policy, which is of course mentioned in the treaty, in the sense that it is intergovernmental. I remind the House that when the break-up of Yugoslavia took place some years ago we all lamented the fact that Europe was unable to respond either politically or militarily. We all had different responses as individual nations, recognising different bits of the break-up of Yugoslavia at different times. It was not until we managed to enlist the United States and NATO that we were able to bring a military presence to the area. We lamented what happened because Europe had no mechanism with which to respond. It did not exist at that stage; it now does exist. We have developed the common foreign and security policy over a number of years. One of the organs of that, through the European security and defence policy, is Operation Althea, the peacekeeping force in Bosnia, which has worked reasonably successfully, although there are currently a few concerns.
	At that time there was a security and political situation on Europe's doorstep that was degenerating fast, but to which we had no means of responding. Today, there are at least two other situations on Europe's doorstep that are developing in a not dissimilar fashion, although one is about break-ups. I refer to the situation on the border between Turkey and Iraq—a situation involving an applicant member for the European Union and a full NATO member being bombarded from the other side by terrorists groups and on so—and to Georgia. Georgia wants to join NATO and eventually the European Union, but has disputed territory in which Russia is playing an unhelpful part.
	Now that we have developed the apparatus of CSFP, with battle groups that are ready to be deployed at 15 days' notice, are those not areas where we could prove once and for all that European nations can work together to respond to situations that develop in our own backyard and that we are not for ever dependant on the United States to come to our rescue? I make a plea to the Minister to ensure through his representatives in Brussels that both the political and security committee and the military committee of the European Union discuss the issue urgently.

Barry Gardiner: I welcome this opportunity to speak in support of the Loyal Address. I will speak of two islands: Cyprus and Sri Lanka, both of which merit our attention and our action.
	Earlier in this debate, the Foreign Secretary spoke of the cross-party agreement on the eventual accession of Turkey to the EU. Yesterday I was privileged to spend an evening in the wonderful company of His Eminence the Orthodox Archbishop of Thyateira and Great Britain. We were both guests of the congregation of St. Panteleimon church, which sits on the edge of my constituency. That congregation does not share the cross-party agreement of the House. My constituents urged me to pose the following few questions to my right hon. Friend. How can we in the EU entertain for accession a country that refuses to recognise the legitimacy of one of the EU's existing members, Cyprus? EU law required Turkey to open its ports and airports to Cyprus by the end of 2006. It failed to do so. More than that, how can we in the EU entertain for accession a country that is currently in military occupation of one of our own members, Cyprus?
	There was a perverse incentive for Turkey to increase its settlement in the north of the island. That resulted in the rejection of the Annan plan by the Greek Cypriot community. I urge my right hon. Friend to focus his attention on the need to resolve the partition and occupation of Cyprus. Without a fair settlement of the Cyprus issue that recognises the rights of my constituents and many like them who are refugees and whose homes still stand beyond reach, across the green line and under Turkish occupation, there can be no progress in Turkey's aspiration to EU membership.
	I welcome the wise and worthy remarks of my old boss in Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). I, too, wish to say a few words about the situation in Sri Lanka. It is now almost a year since my friend Anton Balasingham died. He had led the political engagement of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, seeking a peace settlement in Sri Lanka for a quarter of a century. In paying a brief tribute to him, I wish to bring to the House's attention the appalling deterioration of the situation in Sri Lanka in the year since his death.
	From reading reports, I am given to understand that Tamils with a permanent home but no job and also Tamils with a job but no permanent home in Colombo have in the past year been rounded up and summarily transported out of Colombo to the north and east of the country. Such behaviour is entirely unacceptable in a Commonwealth country. I urge my right hon. Friend to be uncompromising in his representations to the Sri Lankan Government on such forced deportations and on the reports that many of those detained and transported have not reached their destinations alive.
	Over the past decade, I have been privileged to play a small role in the process of bringing opposing sides into dialogue. In that role, I have spoken with successive presidents and prime ministers, including the current President of Sri Lanka, Mr. Rajapakse, whom I entertained in Northern Ireland when he came to see how the process of dialogue undertaken there might apply to his country. The situation under his presidency has not borne the fruit that I certainly hoped it might after our meeting on that occasion. That is another example of where our Foreign Secretary must engage with the Commonwealth and partner countries in the region to ensure that our demands for human rights observances are met.
	In the few minutes left to me, I want to turn from foreign affairs on a small scale to the question of globalisation. Earlier the Foreign Secretary powerfully contrasted the policy of humanitarian intervention that he attributed to his opposite number and the policy of international scepticism that the Leader of the Opposition espoused in a recent speech. Nothing brings us closer to the reason why a policy of scepticism is inappropriate for this and every other country than the issues of globalisation and climate change.
	Climate change has made us all aware that we live in a world where the actions of one country integrally affect the lives of those in many others. We have experienced development in this country over the past 250 years or more, and during that period we have contributed to the CO2 emissions in the atmosphere that are now causing the problem of global warming. We shall be involved in the international negotiations in Bali in December that will seek to establish a post-Kyoto protocol and take the matter further. Those negotiations are essential for this country and for our international relationships.
	We must understand that the issues of the environment and human development that have long been held to be separate are, in fact, not separate at all. We must regard the environment and development as one issue. We will not be able to tackle the great causes of development and aid around the world if we do not focus on the environment and its needs, because many of the poorest communities in the world depend on their environment.
	Equally, we shall not be able to solve the problems of our environment unless we give due recognition to the need to take seriously the development aspirations of people who have not been able to catch up with the western speed of growth over the past 200 years and whose aspiration is to come up to that level and to that quality of life. We must therefore see the two aspects of our international engagement—human development and the environment—as being essentially one. The Foreign Secretary was absolutely right to speak of a need to see the world from a perspective of humanitarian intervention and not from one of scepticism and isolation. For those reasons, I welcome the Gracious Speech.

Willie Rennie: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner), who has spoken some wise words on our approach to the world.
	On Saturday morning, a group of people gathered on top of a small, windswept hill in the hamlet of Pattiesmuir. A bottle of beer was opened and shared around the group. The remainder of the beer was poured on to a grave in Douglas Bank cemetery. This was their way of remembering a son, a brother and a friend who died serving his country in Kosovo—sharing a drink as if he were still with us. When so many people have died serving their country, it is difficult to think of them as individuals who had rich lives, but we must.
	As well as remembering the fallen, we must also look to those who serve, or who have served, our country. That is why I am backing the Royal British Legion's campaign to honour the covenant. I want to address some of the Scottish aspects of the campaign. The Ministry of Defence's housing budget in Scotland has dropped by almost £8 million over the past year. Under freedom of information regulations, we have found out that the MOD spent just over £20 million on service families' accommodation in 2006-07, compared with almost £28 million the year before. Over that period, the number of complaints about accommodation has risen. These include complaints from people such as Karen, who is married to a sailor and who has lived in married quarters for almost 10 years. She said:
	"It has got to the stage where I don't even know where to turn to. I have problems with damp and the general lack of maintenance. I had a pipe burst in my bathroom and I had to wait years for the damage to be fixed. It's upsetting for my husband to be off at sea for months at a time with all this on the back of his mind."
	She is not alone; there are many others who complain about the poor accommodation. Will the Minister explain why the spending on MOD housing has fallen in the past year, especially when the Ministry claims to be making significant improvements to the housing?
	Colleagues who closely follow the activities of the Defence Committee, of which I am a member, will know that we took evidence last month from Scottish Executive officials about the health services offered to members of the armed forces and their families, and to ex-servicemen. It was one of the most amateurish displays that I have ever seen from Scottish Executive officials. I am disappointed that, yet again, no members of the Scottish National party are here to listen to the debate. This is the second debate this year on matters of importance that are the responsibility of SNP Members and which they have not bothered to attend. It is a shame that they are not here to listen to the complaints.
	What concerned me even more was that the national debate on the treatment of the armed forces seemed to have passed the Scottish Executive by. Their officials were unaware of the difficulties faced by service families when registering for a dentist, for example, or of the detrimental effect on the careers of health professionals who volunteer as reservists, or of the lack of engagement with the fast-track process for servicemen in English hospitals. They also seemed unconcerned that they had been unaware of those problems.
	I have a theory. When the Scottish Office was responsible for Scottish health, education and other matters before devolution, it took its lead from the UK Departments for Health, Education and so on, which were responsible for working with other Departments across the boundaries to ensure joined-up government. It might not have been a great success, but they were making attempts. Since devolution, however, responsibility for those matters has passed to the Scottish Executive Departments. Although we are assured that there are quarterly meetings with the MOD to discuss matters of defence, the Scottish Executive do not consider them a priority.
	Before I joined the Defence Committee, it undertook an inquiry into service children's education. It found that the Scottish Executive were having similar difficulties engaging with the needs of service families. The Executive seem to think that it is someone else's problem. I would appreciate it if the Minister could shine a spotlight on this area, to ensure that people in Scotland and Wales do not lose out because of a lack of effective and joined-up partnership working between the different Departments in the UK.
	I am pleased that there has been an increase in funding for Combat Stress. There is a great need to expand the support for ex-servicemen who face mental health problems. From the Falklands war, there have been 400 cases in 25 years, but from Iraq there have been 140 in three years. In recent months, there has been a dramatic increase in numbers, as the spotlight has been shone on those suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. Even more people will present to Combat Stress, and this sleeping monster is about to awaken. The awareness of Combat Stress needs to be improved among nurses, doctors and other health professionals, especially those working in primary care.
	Two ex-servicemen approached me earlier this year to express their frustration about the lack of support that they had received for what turned out to be post-traumatic stress disorder. They said that their GP had provided little advice or support, and that things had begun to happen only after they had found out about Combat Stress themselves. Awareness of Combat Stress among primary care practitioners must improve. Much of the funding for Combat Stress comes through the war pension, yet the time delays for ex-servicemen who apply for that pension are excessive. Those delays lead to resentment and frustration, and result in people facing delays in accessing the treatment that they need and deserve.
	I have been a Member for 18 months, during which I have seen four Ministers in the Ministry of Defence and a new Secretary of State. The right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), who made a great speech earlier, was surprisingly sacked after much hard work and long hours on the Armed Forces Bill. He was replaced by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson), who was sacked after suggesting that his boss, the then Prime Minister, should be sacked. The right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (John Reid) was replaced last year by the current Secretary of State, who was subsequently given the additional post of Secretary of State for Scotland. The right hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr. Ingram) has been succeeded by the Minister for the Armed Forces, the right hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth). Now the well respected Lord Drayson has been replaced by Baroness Taylor. We thus have three very new Ministers in the MOD and a part-time Secretary of State—and all this at a time when our armed forces are under great strain, the defence procurement process is undergoing considerable change and we are at war in two theatres. I am not going to comment on the quality of those Ministers, as they need time to prove themselves, but I hope that the Prime Minister recognises that the MOD needs a period of stability.
	Yesterday, after the parade to the Cenotaph, I met a group of reservists from Dunfermline in the Royal British Legion. I also met many who were in the Territorial Army. They were skilled tradesmen, essential to the armed forces. They told me how the expectations of the TA had changed in the past 10 years. When they first joined, they had a slim chance of serving in theatre; now it is almost guaranteed. That shows how overstretched the armed forces have become.
	Earlier this year, we heard about military bandsmen being put on standby to replace infantry battalions guarding Cyprus. The first band scheduled to go to Cyprus will be about 50 musicians from the Welsh Guards, followed by the Grenadier Guards and the Rifles. The first deployment is expected in January next year. When I visited Faslane earlier this year, I met storemen who had been asked to volunteer for front-line duties in Iraq. I heard at the weekend that my colleague, Mike Rumbles, MSP for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, has been invited to volunteer. My friend has many talents, but I had not realised things had got so bad that he would be required for front-line duties in service of his country.
	The National Audit Office says that the armed forces are about 5,000 below strength, which is about 2.8 per cent. That has been the case for the past five years, yet the armed forces have had to operate above predicted deployment levels. Over that time, some 14.5 per cent. of soldiers have been sent on missions more frequently than recommended by the harmony guidelines. Medical services have been hit worse, with reservists filling 66 per cent. of vacant accident and emergency department and intensive therapy nursing posts.
	What are the consequences of that overstretch? According to an MOD survey, a rising number of soldiers are no longer given the full recommended rest period between operations, and only 30 per cent. of ordinary soldiers who responded to the survey were satisfied with the notice given for extra duties. Their families are frustrated as well. Increasing numbers are telling their husbands and wives that they no longer desire a career in the military. One of the reasons for the overstretch is the breaching of the defence planning assumption through our commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq.
	I welcome the announcement to reduce force levels to 2,500 in Basra airbase, the withdrawal from Basra palace and the move to provincial Iraqi control in December. Those are long overdue, but do not go far enough. If the situation has become calmer since we withdrew from the palace, is it not logical for us to withdraw altogether? We are clearly part of the problem and should extricate ourselves.
	I am also concerned about the minimum force protection required. When the Defence Committee visited Basra in July, we were told that the minimum force protection required would be around 5,000. What has changed? Why is it now 2,500? Are we not putting the lives of our armed forces at risk?

Paul Flynn: We have heard speeches today that were wise, rational and intelligent; but we have heard others that were maniacally optimistic and foolish. The problem is that the wise speeches came from the Back Benches and the foolish speeches from the Front Benches. It is extraordinary to encounter such a denial of what has gone wrong. I shall confine myself to Afghanistan, but I would like to associate myself with the splendid speech of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron), who spoke a great deal of sense on Iran and how we appear to be sleepwalking into war, while denying a fair hearing for what people and leaders in Iran are saying. It is so reminiscent of the build-up to the foolish invasion of Iraq, which has caused so many tragedies and achieved so little.
	An earlier intervention suggested that I was in favour of withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, so let me make it clear that I supported the war in Afghanistan in 2001. I thought that it was reasonable because of the presence of al-Qaeda and its protection by the Government of the country. What I criticised at the time, and continue to criticise, is the idea that we can eliminate poppy growing or the supply of heroin from Afghanistan. That was always going to be impossible, yet we have invested £250 million of British taxpayers' money and achieved nothing.
	In fact, things have gone backwards. We know that production is now at its highest level ever—60 per cent. up on last year. The other side of the policy's attraction was that we were going to cut off the supply of heroin to the streets of Britain. In fact, it is now worse. Because of the over-supply of heroin, the price has reached its lowest ever point. It is now even more widely available, yet Front-Bench spokesmen continue to be in denial of that blindingly obvious fact. Again and again, they claimed that we were making progress on drugs and had turned the corner. We have turned so many corners in Afghanistan that we have been round the block half a dozen times, yet we have still ended up in the terrible position that we now face.
	Governments have never been able to cut off the supply of drugs on the basis of action on the supply side while the demand remains. The real drug problem is demand on the streets of Chicago, London and Newport, which is sucking in the drugs. If through some miracle we were able to eliminate all the production of poppy in Afghanistan in two or three years' time, it would still make no difference. The supply of drugs in Myanmar, Turkistan, north Pakistan and Kazakhstan would simply increase to fill the gap. It would be exactly the same as what happened in Columbia. For decades, billions of dollars were spent trying to reduce supply. We even had "Plan Columbia", the result of which was a 20 per cent. increase in the drugs produced there over the last 12 months. It is the squeeze balloon principle: we squeeze the balloon in one area and it grows bigger in another area.
	It is always an impossible task, but it is even worse in Afghanistan because of the mythology whereby people like to believe that the Government were democratically elected in something of a triumph and somehow work in the same way as a Scandinavian democracy does—but they do not. Lord Malloch-Brown—we should pay some tribute to him; he has had a bad day—said at the weekend that he recognises the failure. He is the one Minister who recognises that things are going terribly wrong there. His diagnosis is right, but his solution is not. He said that we all know who the big drug barons are. Yes, we all know who they are and the Afghanistan Government know who they are. One of them is a close relative of President Karzai and two others are provincial governors. Many others are also in the Government. We know that the country and the Government of Afghanistan are endemically corrupt. It is not possible to change that, however hard we try, however many bribes we give out, and however many lives we lose. We will not change that.
	There is another possibility. According to yesterday's  The Guardian, a former civil servant who used to be in charge of the Foreign Office was in despair about the drugs situation in Afghanistan and now favours the turning over of the drug market to a legal supply of poppies for medicine. The case has been well argued. It happened successfully in Turkey. There is a shortage of morphine in the developing world because of its price. Someone who is dying of a terminal disease in a developing world country has a 6 per cent. chance of getting morphine. We could greatly increase the supply and turn the trade into a legal one.
	On the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan, having supported the war in Afghanistan, the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), who represents the Conservatives on the Front Bench, will recall a debate in Westminster Hall in March 2006, before we went into Helmand province. At that time, the Government's view—again, it cannot be unsaid because it was said—was that there was a hope, although not a promise, that the Helmand mission would be concluded in three years without firing a single shot. We have spent £1 billion in Helmand. We have discharged 2.5 million shots. In the first four and a half years of our presence in Afghanistan, we lost the lives of seven of our valiant soldiers, mostly because of accidents. Since then, we have lost a further 76 lives, and it is, tragically, an accelerating process. Does it not get through to the Government that perhaps something is going desperately wrong?
	I take my information from serving soldiers and hear a worrying message about their disillusionment, their feeling that they are fighting an impossible war and their anxiety to get out of the service, never to serve again. Probably the most worrying message of all is that the mood of the country has changed. It welcomed us in 2001. It was glad to see the back of the Taliban. It was fed up with their rules. Now, the people are so fed up with living in a country that has war without end that many of them would willingly welcome the Taliban back as a group that would create law and order again.
	There is no sign of improvement. Who can look at the situation and say that we can carry on as we are? Again, Back Benchers said the sensible thing in that debate. One of them likened it to the charge of the Light Brigade and brought the verse on that up to date. At a time when there was much support for going into Helmand province, that Back Bencher said: "Bush to the right of them, Blair to the left of them, Holler'd and thunder'd, Someone had blunder'd, Theirs not to reason why, Theirs but to do and die, Into the valley of Death, Into the mouth of Helmand, Drove the five thousand."
	Sadly, that prophecy has come bitterly true. We must urge the Government to reconsider what is going on. I am not talking about pulling out of Afghanistan altogether, because progress has been made, in particular on girls' schools. We recognise the progress, but we do not recognise the fact that it is in full retreat and, sadly, schools are closing. It is possible to consolidate the gains made around Kabul, but it is not possible to run the whole country and eliminate the main source of income for the farmers who grow poppies. That cannot be done. There is not a military solution. There is a solution by negotiation and by doing deals.
	I remember vividly another prophetic comment in 2001 by a Member of the Russian Duma, who told me: "You Brits have conquered Afghanistan. Very clever. We did that in six days and we were there for 10 years. We lost 15,000 of our soldiers. We killed 1 million Afghans, and when we ran out, there were 300,000 mujaheddin surrounding Kabul. It will happen to you."
	We need to get some realism into the situation and decide on practical ways of dealing with the hearts and minds argument, because we are not going to win the hearts and minds when the Americans bomb and kill civilians. We saw on that splendid "Panorama" programme the other night a vivid picture of what is happening in Afghanistan. We know that we have hugely superior air power, and perhaps the most telling part of it was the pathetic sight of an elderly man and three children in a bombed building, terrified by what had happened.
	An uncounted number of civilians have been killed. For every death, the opposition to us from the Afghan people increases. That is a further threat to the safety and lives of our British soldiers. I believe that the Member of the Duma was right when he said that we may well turn Afghanistan into a British Vietnam. We can go in there with more troops and fool ourselves with the rhetoric that we heard this afternoon, but ultimately we are heading for a terrible disaster. If we do not make a deal now that is based on the true practicalities of what is taking place, we face a great calamity.

Mark Hendrick: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in the last five years of the Conservative Government, the defence budget was cut by £500 million each year. It has increased by £1 billion each year in the 10 years while this Government have been in office. The largest ever reduction in the Army took place between 1990 and 1997 and involved a cut of 50,000 troops by the previous Tory Government . [Hon. Members: "The cold war finished."] The number of troops in the Army is now roughly at the same level as it was in 1997.

Tobias Ellwood: That lies at the crux of what I am saying. I know that the Secretary of State is in a very difficult position. He is responsible for our military personnel, but much of the debate on Iraq and Afghanistan is directed less at what our military have been doing than at what has happened under the umbrella of security that they create. That is where my venom lies—in attacking the failure to carry out the reconstruction and redevelopment that should have taken place in the three or four months after the initial invasion, and in the years that followed. That does not happen, and it represents a failure of foreign policy. It is absolutely right for us to pay tribute to our military, but I am afraid we cannot pay tribute to the Department for International Development. DFID was not involved in the debates, the planning and the process in the run-up to 2003 because the then Secretary of State refused to acknowledge her responsibility, and we have suffered ever since.
	I disapproved of the initial invasion, but I disapprove even more of the post-invasion planning, which has been deplorable. We depart from southern Iraq leaving a country that is no safer, no stronger and no more prosperous than it was when we first arrived, and I have to ask myself "Was it all actually worth it?"
	Let me say something about Afghanistan, in which I have taken a personal interest. After five years of involvement, we are at a tipping point. Having just returned from the country, I believe that optimism is being replaced with frustration and dissatisfaction with the lack of progress on all fronts. I thank the ambassador, Sherard Cowper-Coles, and his staff for looking after me during my visit, but I return from my fourth visit in two years with a very pessimistic report. The International Security Assistance Force is unable to contain or reduce the Taliban threat in the south, the Government are increasingly seen as inept and corrupt, and the poor co-ordination and absence of agreed strategies among international organisations are hampering the progress of long-term reconstruction and development. As I said in an intervention, we are seeing an Afghanistan that is no more prosperous, no more optimistic in outlook and no less dangerous than it was five years ago.
	There is a huge synergy between what has happened in Iraq and what is happening in Afghanistan. NATO is looking more and more like a two-tier operation, and the position will become even worse if Holland and Canada, which are currently reviewing their commitments to the country, decide to withdraw. I also am sad to report that President Karzai's Government are increasingly being seen as corrupt. The centralised model is inappropriate for a country comprising such a diverse collection of ethnic groups. It represses any tribal, ethic or cultural differences rather than celebrating them, and consequently there is growing resentment that the Kabul power base is now being abused. That is despite the fact that the centralised model hinders corrupt governors from exploiting their power base.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I would say that it was a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood), and I was not going to talk about Afghanistan, but I have to pick up on the point about money spent on women in Helmand province. One issue that I picked up when I was there was that money was being spent on widows. Without a man to support them, in their community they have nothing. The projects that I saw are training women to set up their own businesses. Micro-finance is enabling them to be respected in their community and to bring money into that community. That is the future of Afghanistan, so I would not say that that money was wasted.
	To come back to what I had planned to talk about, like most hon. Members, I attended a Remembrance day service in my constituency yesterday. The poppy is symbolic of the famous battlefields of the first world war: the Somme, Paschendale, Ypres. In some ways, it was more simple then. There was a clear enemy, a real threat of physical invasion, one side ranged against the other, trench warfare and a war of attrition, in which each side sustained the most horrendous losses—20 million deaths, civilian and military.
	World war two was even worse. Over 100 million soldiers were fighting across the world and the casualties were even greater—estimated at over 70 million, civilian and military. However, it was still nation states against nation states. Even the more recent Falklands conflict was nation state versus nation state, an actual invasion of sovereign territory and an easy concept for the British people to understand and get behind.
	In contrast, today's action in Afghanistan is much more complex, much less black and white. There is not a direct threat of invasion but an indirect threat to our security through terrorism. It is not nation state against nation state, but a coalition of forces supporting the elected Afghan Government in order to prevent the country from slipping back into a base for terrorism with which to threaten us.
	Iraq is more complex still. I do not intend to go back into the whys and wherefores of how we got into the situation, except to say that I have a sizeable Kurdish community in my constituency and the Iraqi Kurds suffered the most under the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein and had been calling on us in the west for years to rid them of that evil dictator.
	In the Gracious Speech, Her Majesty stated that the Government will work closely with the Government of Iraq
	"to deliver security, political reconciliation and economic reconstruction."
	We need to leave behind the arguments about the invasion and focus on the here and now, as Iraq will continue to be a major issue in British and western politics for many decades to come. Calling for troops out now is too easy and does a disservice both to the good work being done by our servicemen and women stationed there and to the Iraqi people.
	All that the majority of people hear about Iraq is blood, bombs and failure, but while of course that is a large part of the picture, there are other facets of modern Iraq. We should not forget the emergence of a plethora of democratic political parties, and elections in which more people have participated than in the UK. We should also not forget the emergence of a new independent civil society and chiefly the renaissance of the labour movement. Trade union membership has increased from virtually hundreds to hundreds of thousands in four years—probably the biggest single growth of trade unionism in the world. Those unions are organised on non-sectarian lines and wish to contribute to a growing federal and democratic Iraq after nearly four decades of fascist-type rule under the Ba'ath and Saddam.
	In addition, there is the exemplary success of the Kurdistan region in Iraq, which I aim to visit in the next few months. Kurdistan today is relatively prosperous, with a more developed economy than other parts of Iraq—unsurprising perhaps, given its relative security. The region has a young and increasingly prosperous population of nearly 4 million people, seven universities, two of which teach exclusively in English, and a returning diaspora providing a skilled work force with English as a second language. The relative security and stability of the region has allowed the Kurdistan regional government to sign a number of investment contracts with foreign companies, and in 2006 we saw the first new oil well drilled in the Kurdistan region since the invasion of Iraq.
	We should not forget that that region suffered terribly under Saddam's brutal regime. It was on the receiving end of the Anfal campaign of the late 1980s, where thousands of civilians were killed during chemical and conventional bombardment. Between 100,000 and 200,000 Kurds lost their lives and some 2,000 villages were destroyed. They have been able, since what people here in the UK commonly call the invasion and what the Iraqi Kurds commonly call the liberation that came in 2003, further to rebuild the region with more democratic and unified institutions, a thriving economy and external investment, and their leaders are making a massive contribution to holding Iraq together.
	That is not an easy task. We have only to look at the Kirkuk situation. Kirkuk is seen as a historic part of the Kurdistan region, but Saddam forcibly expelled many Kurds from the city and settled it with his supporters. It is one of the most bitter issues in Iraqi politics. However, it has been agreed that there should be a referendum by the end of this year, although it may well run into next year. Kirkuk is an oil-rich city and I note that the Kurdistan regional government has committed itself to sharing the oil revenues from the area, as other Iraqi oil resources are to be shared, roughly on a per capita basis. I hope that the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will add his weight to the calls for the agreement on Kirkuk to be implemented.
	I was pleased that the Secretary of State for Defence found time in his schedule to visit Kurdistan recently. He stated:
	"The Kurdistan Region shows what can be achieved when people cooperate and work together. This is a very strong example for the rest of Iraq. With better security, the rest of Iraq can follow this model."
	I wholeheartedly agree. President Masoud Barzani praised the Secretary of State's visit, saying that it came at an opportune time. He thanked the UK for its role in the liberation of Iraq. Regarding the current tension between Turkey and the PKK, the President called for brotherhood between Turks and Kurds. He said:
	"Military action to solve the current tensions between Turkey and the PKK will benefit no one. We believe that only dialogue can secure a long lasting solution."
	In an earlier meeting between the Secretary of State and Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani, the Prime Minister thanked the British leadership and the people for the important role that they have played in Iraq since 2003. Prime Minister Barzani emphasised that Turkey was an important trading partner and that the Kurdistan regional government was ready to do whatever it could to defuse tensions. The Kurdistan regional government does not support the actions of the PKK and it believes that only through dialogue and communication can a permanent peace be found.
	There are reasons to be positive. Events in the past few days have been both significant and promising. Just last week, eight Turkish soldiers who had been captured by Kurdish rebels were released and the EU has demonstrated that it is prepared to engage on the issue.
	On 23 October, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) and I met members of the Kurdish community from my constituency and Ms Rahman, the Kurdistan regional government's high representative to the UK, who reiterated its commitment fully to engage in dialogue with Turkey. That is in Turkey's interest, too. I look forward to the day when Turkey becomes a full and active EU member, but with that right comes responsibility. Turkey can represent a proper bridge to the middle east, but that must never be at the expense of minority rights within Turkey. The EU's norms and values are expressed not by the prevailing religion but by our attitudes of tolerance and respect for those of different faiths and cultures. Turkey's drive towards modernisation and Europeanisation holds the key to that. Turkey's Prime Minister has said that the solution to "the Kurdish problem" lies in
	"greater democracy, greater rights, greater social and economic development - in short Turkey's Europeanisation."
	I entirely agree. Turkey must engage with its own Kurdish population, and be prepared to work with the Kurdistan regional government in what is, after all, their mutual interest.
	Kurdistan is a model for how Iraq should be: relative peace and stability leading to investment and reform. It is vital to the west, to Turkey and to all neighbours in the region that Kurdistan continues to flourish. We should be doing all we can to help that to happen. I have spoken of the growing trade union movement in Iraq. When some of my colleagues visited Kurdistan last year, they held a five-hour discussion with union leaders from around Iraq where the message was simple: "Help us to stand on our own two feet and contribute to social justice." Trade unions can help contribute to social justice, as has been demonstrated over the years in this country.
	Just the other day I had the privilege of meeting the visiting Kurdistan region youth and sports Minister, who told me that Iraqi Kurds are fanatical about football and that the Arbil team from Kurdistan was the Iraqi team in the Asian cup. I was very pleased that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport was able to join us and to promise to help to promote greater sporting links between the UK and Kurdistan.

Greg Hands: I want to address my comments entirely to the proposed EU reform treaty. As I outlined at length in the debate of 20 June on Europe, I am a natural pro-European. I thank the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) for his kind comments about my enthusiasm for Europeans in general and eastern Europeans in particular. Nevertheless, I remain deeply sceptical of the direction of the EU at the moment.
	 The Economist last month called the EU
	"an institution desperately short of legitimacy and accountability"
	and I agree. I am not someone who is opposed per se to European co-operation or even to the pooling of sovereignty in certain areas such as, for example, in the administration of trade policy. But I believe that any new and/or significant transfer of power to Brussels needs to fulfil two important criteria. The first is that the British people must vote democratically for it to happen; the second is that the ensuing structures and processes in Europe must themselves be democratic. Both are crucial, yet neither is being fulfilled by the treaty that we will be considering at length this Session.
	I wanted to focus my comments less on the process—it does not really need to be said any longer that the process of arriving at this treaty has been deeply dishonest and full of subterfuge, practised both by those proposing the new treaty and by the Government here in the lead-up to signing it—and principally on the contents. We are in danger of becoming too fixated on manifesto pledges and red lines—important though they are—and we need to get across what is wrong with this treaty and how it is against British interests. I will outline seven areas of particular concern.
	The first was talked about at length by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague); the role of the new EU President. As he rightly pointed out, the federalist vision is that the position be eventually merged with that of the President of the Commission. Giscard d'Estaing said:
	"We will probably have to have at least two executives in the beginning".
	The UK fought in the drafting of the constitution against any merging, but the new treaty will allow for it. The final text states only that
	"the President of the European Council should not hold national office"
	but it is quite possible for him or her to be the President of the Commission. Suddenly we would have a very powerful head of the Executive, combining the roles of the President of the Council and of the Commission, but crucially he or she would be unelected either by the peoples of Europe or even by the Parliaments. Giuliano Amato, the Vice-President of the convention that drew up the original EU constitution, has even explicitly called for the two positions to be merged before 2015.
	"Can an animal with two heads survive for long?"
	he asked.
	On the EU Foreign Minister and the EU Diplomatic Service, the UK's hard-fought-for position at the top table of the UN Security Council is under threat. Under the treaty the UK at the UN
	"shall ask that the High Representative be invited to present the position of the Union"
	when
	"the Union has defined a position on a subject on the agenda of the UN Security Council."
	The UK fought twice during earlier negotiations on the constitution to have this struck out and was twice unsuccessful. The clause is with us today.
	The third area of concern is the self-amending nature of the treaty, another important provision that was re-introduced from the constitution. At present, the EU treaties can only be amended by an intergovernmental conference, which must then be ratified in each member state, by Parliament or by referendum. However, article 33(2) of the new treaty allows the Council to vote by unanimity to change any of the text of part 3 of the treaty on the functioning of the Union, which is basically all the detail of the treaties.
	I could talk about the vetoes that have been abolished and the reduction in our ability to block EU legislation, but I will mention instead the single legal personality, which for the first time would allow the EU, rather than member states, to sign up to international agreements on foreign policy. I take the House back to the words of Tony Blair after the Amsterdam treaty:
	"Others wanted to give the European Union explicit legal personality across all pillars of the treaty. At our insistence, that was removed".
	Ten years later, it has come back.
	I want to talk about the duty of national Parliaments under the new treaty. The text says that the national Parliaments, including our own, will have a duty to
	"contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union."
	National Parliaments, unlike the European Parliament, were not creations of the treaties and their rights are not dependent on the treaties. Indeed, the new treaty proposes, for the first time, that national Parliaments be subservient to the Union. The new treaty still says that
	"National Parliaments contribute to the good functioning of the Union"
	and that they are "seeing to it" that subsidiarity be respected. For the first time, European government is ordering national Parliaments how to behave, which is deeply worrying.
	The final and most important point concerns the charter of fundamental rights and the European Court of Justice. They will take from the UK Parliament a significant amount of our ability to govern ourselves, especially in areas of criminal justice and home affairs. On 18 June, Tony Blair told the Liaison Committee that the UK
	"will not accept a Treaty that allows the Charter of Fundamental Rights to change UK law in any way."
	That was one of the red lines. The excellent report from the European Scrutiny Committee—of which I am proud to be a member—described in clear detail how this red line has been crossed. The charter of fundamental rights applies to member states when implementing Union law.
	Our report raised the question whether the UK would be bound by ECJ case law when the ECJ interprets the charter in relation to implementation and cases in other EU members—and particularly cases where the same measure has been implemented in the UK. In other words, ECJ judgments would form part of the case law which the UK courts would be obliged to follow in this country so that EU law is applied consistently across the EU.
	The Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), said of the protocol that Tony Blair and his successor as Prime Minister believe they have negotiated that
	"it will leak like a sieve."
	The former Prime Minister said that the charter would not apply in the UK at all thanks to the protocol, but I am now certain that he was wrong. Moreover, the current Minister for Europe seems to agree. He said to the Committee on 2 October that the protocol
	"is a statement of how the Charter provisions will apply in the UK",
	which is rather different from saying they would not apply at all. In practice, the European Scrutiny Committee pointed out in its excellent report of 2 October how the red line has been totally breached.
	During the past two and half years since I have been a Member, the euro has been a neglected topic in this House. I wanted to compare the Government's handling of the treaty and the broken promises made to their commitments on the euro. I ask Members whether it is just me who thinks that the four red lines on the treaty are not unlike the five economic tests on the euro. They are lines and tests that are self-declared, self-policed and—in my view—destined to be broken. The commitment to the referendum on the treaty sounds not unlike the commitment to a referendum on the euro; the commitment was put in place to kick the issue into touch before a general election—in the case of the euro, the 2001 general election, and in the case of the treaty, the general election of 2005. I believe that the Government will ultimately renege on that commitment to hold a referendum on the euro in the coming years.
	I might be the only Member who has read the Cabinet Office document, "Global Europe", which the Prime Minister launched in this House to great fanfare on 22 October. There is virtually nothing in it, so nobody has missed a great deal. It is like a "Brodie's Notes" on how the European Union functions for one of the Government's very straightforward GCSEs. The only new ideas in it that the Prime Minister announced on 22 October sounded terribly familiar to me, so I checked and discovered that I had, indeed, heard most of them before. They were the same ideas as appeared in a speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), the Leader of the Opposition, in Brussels in March. I invite Members to draw comparisons. The Prime Minister told us last month that
	"the priority for the European Union must now be the global challenges that we face in relation to employment, prosperity, competitiveness, climate change and security. Today—in a document, "Global Europe", published this afternoon and available to the House now—the Government set out how we will advance those new priorities in the future."—[ Official Report, 22 October 2007; Vol. 465, c. 19.]
	He also talked about the EU's role in "reducing global poverty", climate change and competitiveness. Let us compare that with the Leader of the Opposition's speech in Brussels in March. He said:
	"The EU should be focusing on three things. First, the economic challenge of globalisation. Second, the environmental challenge of climate change. And third, the moral and security challenge of global poverty. What needs doing? Globalisation. Global warming. Global poverty. I think of these as the priorities of a 3G Europe."
	The two speeches are almost identical. The big difference is that the Leader of the Opposition's speech came seven months earlier.
	Of course there are issues of trust, issues of manifesto pledges broken, issues of red lines being red herrings, red lines being breached and so on. But it is not just the process that concerns me. What is proposed are fundamental changes to our national sovereignty and the weakening of our role as one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. We will have two foreign services, one of them UK, the other EU, and the latter will inevitably gain at the expense of the former The new EU President will, when the role is combined with the president of the EU Council, be an all-powerful Executive figure who, crucially, is unelected. Most of all, this Parliament and the UK courts will lose significant powers to the ECJ in relation to the interpretation of our laws in many important areas.
	As was said at Laeken at the start of this EU constitution process, we desperately need more democracy in the EU. Yet this treaty offers less democracy, not more. Moreover, I do not believe that this Parliament has the right to bind its successors to the surrender of all those powers.

Mark Hendrick: The Gracious Speech by Her Majesty the Queen outlined the direction and the plans of this Government for the coming months and years. Increased security and the encouragement and spread of democracy are integral to those plans, and I will seek to cover some of the key policy areas that affect our relations with other countries and our national security.
	Our national security faces many threats: the threat from climate change; the threat to our energy security; the threat from international terrorism; and the threat from weapons of mass destruction. Many of the threats are overlapping or interrelated, for example, our approach to climate change is very much affected by meeting the challenges that we face in terms of our energy supply and consumption, and indeed our energy security.
	Europe has limited indigenous energy production capacity. By 2030, the EU is expected to import 94 per cent. of its oil needs, 84 per cent. of natural gas consumption and 59 per cent. of solid fuel used. The dispute between Russia and Ukraine over natural gas prices in January 2006, and more recently Russia's dispute with Belarus, highlight the risks of dependence on a limited number of energy suppliers. The disputes did not directly affect exports to Europe, but raised doubts about Russia's reliability as a source of energy.
	The middle east is the most important energy producing region in the world, but one of the most politically unstable. Tensions over Iran's nuclear programme have intensified concerns about the stability of supply. In Iraq, tens of billions of dollars are required to bring the oil industry's output back up to its 1978 peak of 3.5 million barrels per day. That capital has not been invested because of the continuing attacks on the country's infrastructure and work force, and uncertainty about its political and legal structures.
	In zones of conflict or where there is political instability, there is considerable scope for "non-state actors" to target oil and gas resources in pursuit of their objectives. Al-Qaeda has threatened to attack what Osama bin Laden calls the "hinges" of the world's economy—its infrastructure—of which energy is the most crucial element. Two countries where local groups have been targeting foreign oil companies are Colombia and Nigeria. The latter has become a particularly dangerous environment for oil companies and their staff over the past decade. In 2003, Royal Dutch Shell closed its operations in the western Niger Delta region of Nigeria due to increasingly violent unrest.
	It is clear that change in climate, resource scarcity and insecure supplies of energy will have a massive impact on our world. The consequences include growing geopolitical tensions over remaining oil supplies, including a new scramble for Africa's oil and gas. Conflict zones in Africa are associated with the possession of energy sources, and future superpower rivalries may result from the competition.
	In his review for the British Government, Sir Nicholas Stern summarised the far-reaching consequences of inaction on climate change, which will include problems with food security; water security; and immigration and migration. Wars fought over limited resources—land, fresh water and fuel—have been commonplace throughout history. By reducing those resources in some of the most volatile parts of the world, climate change creates a new and frightening prospect for conflict.
	The UK is showing strong global leadership in that area. The Climate Change Bill, outlined in the Gracious Speech, will make our country the first in the world to set out long-term targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Bill will create a legally binding commitment to the Government's target of a 60 per cent. reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. In doing that, it will create a new approach to managing and responding to climate change in the UK through strengthening the institutional framework. It will also establish clear and regular accountability to Parliament and the devolved legislatures.
	In March 2007, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—when he was Chancellor—announced the new £800 million environment transformation fund, which will help developing countries to adopt low carbon technology, adapt to climate change and preserve their vital and diverse ecosystems. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett), the former Foreign Secretary, took the climate change debate to the Security Council earlier this year, highlighting its importance to international security.
	The UK is also committed to action undertaken by the EU. In March this year Britain and other European nations agreed to the following goals, which are to be achieved by 2020—a 20 per cent. reduction in EU greenhouse gas emissions, as compared with 1990 levels; an increase in the use of renewable energy to 20 per cent. of all energy consumed; an increase in the use of biofuels to 10 per cent. of all fuel used in transport.
	Globalisation has led to a number of issues that will be addressed successfully only by co-operating with other organisations such as the EU, the G8 and the United Nations. That is why the Government are committed to working multilaterally. The Department for International Development, for instance, spends two fifths of its budget through the multilateral system. Multilateral action is not a soft option. In Afghanistan, British forces work alongside forces from more than 30 different countries as part of a NATO operation, backed by a UN mandate. That is alongside the development and humanitarian assistance provided by the EU and the UN.
	Multilateralism does not replace the need for good bilateral relationships, and that is why the UK will continue to work, and develop its partnership, with the United States. The political reality is that the US not only shares our values but is the world's largest economy. As such, it has the potential to be an enormous force for good to many nations around the world.
	Britain plays a leading role in the EU. The President of the European Commission has commented on the UK's importance to Europe, and that importance has been demonstrated in many ways. On climate change and energy, UK support was vital in putting the emissions trading scheme in place so quickly. On security and defence, in 2005 Britain was the biggest contributor of troops to European security and defence policy operations. Our Labour Government made Africa a priority for the British presidency of the EU and the G8. As a result of that influence, Britain's special relationships—for instance with China and India—have been enhanced. Those connections will ensure that the UK will always have influence in Europe. Angela Merkel said recently that it would be impossible to imagine the EU moving forward without Britain.
	The Labour Government are committed to ratifying the European Union reform treaty, which makes institutional changes that will enable an enlarged EU to work more effectively. There will be more continuity, with six-month presidencies being replaced by two-and-a-half-year presidencies. There will be more efficiency, as the treaty will cap the number of European Commissioners at two thirds of the number of member states. There will be more fairness, as there will be a new, more representative, voting system, and our share of the vote will increase. There will be more democracy, because national Parliaments will get a direct say in EU decision making for the first time, and can challenge a proposal if there is an object by one third.

Adrian Bailey: I am particularly pleased to take part in this debate on the Gracious Speech in respect of defence. It is most appropriately timed, given that yesterday was Armistice day. I am sure that, up and down the country, virtually all of us took part in Remembrance day celebrations, along with millions of others in an act of remembrance of the sacrifices made by our armed forces in past and current conflicts.
	The debate is appropriate because one of the issues raised by our armed forces and the Royal British Legion is society's perceived lack of appreciation and support for our forces. Related to that is the ongoing debate on what support we should give our troops and their families at home and in theatre. We understand that our armed forces feel that they are not valued; sometimes that can, in part, be the result of the intemperate language used and accusations made in this House and sometimes in the media.
	It is perfectly legitimate to have policy positions different from those of the Government and to question the Government when things go wrong. However, in the past few months I have heard inaccurate accusations and comments that call into question the Government's commitment to our armed forces. The Government are totally committed to our armed forces and totally appreciate their strength and professionalism and the sacrifices that they make. Ultimately, we will be judged by the financial commitment that we make. Under this Government, that will be a real-terms 1.5 per cent. increase per year; there were cuts during the five years that preceded the fall of the previous Conservative Government. I shall return to the issue of funding later.
	If attendance at Armistice day ceremonies is any indication of public attitudes, there is a growing understanding of the sacrifices made in the past and a feeling that we must do more in future. That is due to a number of factors. First, today's global media coverage shows daily reminders of the horrors that our troops have to endure and their bravery on the front line in Iraq and Afghanistan. Credit must also be given to the Royal British Legion for the contribution that it makes. It not only supports veterans and their families but plays an active role in local communities by educating young people on the role of our forces and demonstrating how they provided young people with the freedoms that they enjoy today.
	It is not fashionable to say so, but the Government must take some credit for their work in providing veterans' badges, their support for the D-day, VE and VJ celebrations, and their support for the national memorial centre at Alrewas, which was commented on by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) and is a demonstration of the support that the Government are giving to recognising and remembering the role that our troops play.
	In that context, I want to pay tribute to a person from my constituency, the late John Bayliss. On Sunday 4 November, I attended a ceremony at the national memorial arboretum where a tree was planted in memory of John, who was president of the Tipton branch of the British Legion. In that capacity, he was the driving force behind not only raising thousands of pounds for the legion but getting war veterans—ex-servicemen—into local schools to tell young people about their experiences, providing pupils with living history. He was particularly active in supporting initiatives in Alexandra school and Great Bridge primary school. He also provided constant socials and support for war veterans in the locality. It is fair to say that, because of that, in my constituency there is probably a greater level of understanding and appreciation of the work of our forces. John died in June, but his legacy will live on. Others like him work day in, day out in other branches of the legion. They add enormous value to the work that the Government have done on the appreciation of our armed forces.
	However, we must recognise that that appreciation will not in itself deal with the range of needs of service personnel, and that must be addressed. The change is being brought about by the expertise and lobbying of the Royal British Legion through its honour the covenant campaign. The issues that it has raised about the way that society views and treats service personnel, and what level of support they should receive, challenge both Government and society. I have heard Opposition Members pray in aid evidence from the campaign in criticising the Government. I would point out that in the recent debate on the third sector review many of them were critical of the Government's support for the role of charities and voluntary organisations in so-called political campaigning, as opposed to party political campaigning. The legion's campaign for the covenant is a political campaign, but it should be welcomed as a clear demonstration of the importance that voluntary and charitable organisations can play in the development of Government policy.
	When I speak to veterans of the second world war, many of whom are on low incomes, I am amazed by the modesty of their expectations from the state, in complete contrast to the enormous sacrifices that they made for it. Successive Governments have failed in the past to provide what servicemen could reasonably expect, and I am pleased to say that this Government are trying to change that. I applaud their efforts to provide a better deal for our current servicemen. While it is important to debate their future needs, it must be recognised that much has already been done to right historic wrongs. Better pay, operational allowances, welfare packages, support for the bereaved and better medical support have all been provided in recent years. That is particularly true for servicemen or ex-servicemen with mental health problems. The money given in order to combat stress, and the support provided for individuals to obtain mental health consultation, is an indication of that.
	Housing is still a huge problem for service personnel and their families. I welcome the proposed investment of £5 billion in service accommodation over the next 10 years, but I urge the Government to do everything in their power to help service personnel to buy their own homes, thereby gaining access to the housing ladder. Investment in a home has been the most important single factor in the rise in individual wealth in this country, and if we are to retain service personnel, we must ensure that they do not miss out.
	I welcome the announcement of the Command Paper to be published in spring 2008. I feel that now is the right time to debate the issues highlighted by the Royal British Legion. The announcement that the Government are to take stock of current support and set out an agenda for service personnel and their families, and for veterans, is long overdue. A public consensus should be developed and a coherent policy constructed. In the past, improvements have been piecemeal—often in response to particular needs or events. That must change.
	It is right that this discussion should take place at a time when the Government are proposing an increase in expenditure. I refer to the 1.5 per cent. per annum increase during the next five years. We must acknowledge as part of this debate that there will be costs. Unfortunately, while I have heard many complaints from Opposition Members, what is lacking is a commitment on their part to spend more to deal with the problems that they have been so quick to highlight.
	In the defence debate in this Chamber on 16 October, there was a long discussion on the alleged reduction of defence spending as a proportion of gross domestic product, and about the proportion of the public spending budget that should be devoted to defence. The Conservative party claims that, if elected, it would share the proceeds of growth between public spending increases and tax cuts, which can only mean that public spending would drop as a proportion of GDP. In turn, if the Opposition are to sustain the level of spending proposed by this Government, they will have to increase the defence budget as a share of public spending. To date, we have heard no commitment to do so, and when challenged in the debate of 16 October, no commitment was forthcoming.
	If there is no such commitment, so much of what we have heard from Opposition Members today will be just hollow rhetoric. Servicemen, their conditions and the support that we give to them should transcend petty political points. I hope that the Opposition will join a consensus with the Government in this debate to provide the funds that the British Legion proposes are necessary to support the covenant.

Robert Walter: My hon. Friend has struck on an important point. Will he tease out from the Secretary of State whether the EU's battle groups, which were heralded as the answer to such a crisis in Bosnia, could be deployed to meet any crisis that arises; otherwise, the battle groups are of no possible worth whatever?

Liam Fox: General Dannatt said that we had no reserves for the unexpected, which is one of the main problems that we could face if a further crisis emerges in the Balkans. When EUFOR took over security responsibilities from NATO in December 2004, roughly 80 per cent. of the military contingent serving in the NATO force were also members of the EU. That made the transition of authority virtually seamless. Essentially, the transfer of power from NATO to the EU simply required the troops on the ground to remove the NATO flag from their sleeves and replace it with that of the EU.
	EUFOR's current strength of 2,500 troops, of which only 580 come from the core multinational manoeuvre battalion, which has real fighting capability if the security situation deteriorates, is operating in an area roughly twice the size of Wales. What is the plan if Kosovo's declaration of independence creates further instability in the region? Last week, Olli Rehn, the EU Enlargement Commissioner, played down the risk of regional instability in the western Balkans, saying:
	"I don't see any reason why the Kosovo status process should provoke any instability in any other country of the western Balkans and I sincerely hope that nobody uses that as an excuse or pretext to provoke any instability in the region."
	That could be a triumph of hope over experience.
	I am afraid that a crisis in the Balkans could be closer than we think. In two weeks' time, EUFOR's mandate expires and, because of EU legal requirements, any military mission must have the approval of the United Nations Security Council. Western diplomats have warned that Russia could veto the decision to renew the EU force's mandate at a time when the Kremlin is unhappy with western policy on Kosovo, on the missile defence system and on other European security issues. What will EUFOR do, when its mandate ends on 21 November, if Russia uses its veto in the UN Security Council to block its renewal? Pack up and go home, or what?
	My colleague, the shadow Foreign Secretary, has already written to the Government to outline our concerns on the matter, and to urge the Government to respond to the seriousness of the situation in the region. We cannot ignore the lessons from the past. The one thing that the region clearly needs as it passes through this difficult stage is united international support and a strong international presence. The international community has invested enormous effort and good will to help the people of the region to recover from the ravages of war, shake off a legacy of nationalism and join Euro-Atlantic structures. Thanks to this, Slovenia has now become a fully fledged member of the European Union and NATO, and Croatia is on track to join both institutions within the coming years. Those are but a few of the achievements of recent times. These hard-won successes are an example for the whole region. The next few months will be testing, but it would be completely irresponsible and unacceptable if we were taken by surprise this time.

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman has made some quite stark points about the legal position in respect of the very delicate issues in the Balkans. His explanation of the legal situation is not exactly the same as the Government's, however. If it would be helpful for him and for the Liberal Democrats, perhaps we could arrange a meeting at which we could discuss what we understand to be the ambit of UN Security Council resolution 1244, and how it provides an important basis for these arrangements. He talked about there being a crisis within two weeks, and I would not want that to stand without his having a chance to hear that explanation— [ Interruption. ]

Liam Fox: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for his intervention. However, I think that it is clear from the noises off that the House would like an opportunity to get all that information at the earliest opportunity. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary might extend his invitation and offer to make a statement to the House on this worsening crisis. We have watched events in years gone by—we are not without our own measure of guilt on this issue, it has to be said—and we must ensure that we do not sit by while another crisis in the conflict develops. However, I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for this offer, and we will certainly take up any invitation to have a briefing on the legal elements of the matter.
	While there is general agreement on most aspects of strategy, on which the House takes a relatively bipartisan approach, there is profound disquiet about how the Government have handled the armed forces, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) pointed out in his powerful speech this afternoon. The list of indictments against the Government's stewardship of our defence policy and armed forces grows ever longer. They began well, with a strategic defence review that had widespread support. From this, the defence planning assumptions gave rise to the defence budget. But the Government then went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, exceeding the planning assumptions without increasing the resources appropriately. The result has been continually worsening overstretch of our armed forces, with the burden being carried ever more by service families.
	The Government failed to plan properly for the aftermath of the Iraq war, and our casualty rates have consequently risen. They even knowingly sent our troops into battle in Iraq without the necessary body armour, for party political considerations. They cut the helicopter budget by £1.4 billion in 2004, when we were already involved in two conflicts. Now we have to beg our allies to fill the gap created.
	The Government reduced the size of the infantry by three battalions at a time when we were fighting two major operations. Since 1997, our active aircraft carrier fleet has been cut from three to two; our frigate and destroyer fleet has been cut from 35 to 25; our attack submarine fleet will have been cut from 12 to nine: all below the numbers that the Government themselves said that we needed to implement the strategic defence review.
	It is not necessary to take my word for it. Lord West, the current Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for security and counter-terrorism and a former First Sea Lord, said:
	"Maybe I'm just a silly old"
	fool—I paraphrase, Madam Deputy Speaker—
	"but I've got 41 years experience of these things and I can tell you we need 30 destroyers and frigates for what the Government wants us to do."
	To make matters worse, the Government recently abolished the Defence Export Services Organisation. That was to the delight of those who oppose the arms trade, which, as my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Sussex and for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) said, provides so many British jobs. Who were the happy ones? The Campaign Against Arms Trade. As CAAT news says, "DESO: We won!". That is a disgrace.
	Yet for all that, the first act of the new Prime Minister, while we were still losing troops in two dangerous conflicts, was to appoint a part-time Defence Secretary, who spends his time fighting both the Scottish National party and the Taliban. Again, comment from the Government's own side is most interesting. Lord Gilbert, a former Labour Minister of State for Defence, stated in the other place only a few days ago:
	"The double-hatting of Defence Secretary with Scottish Secretary is one of the most disgraceful appointments that I have ever heard of. I hope that the Prime Minister realises the damage that it is doing to him, to his party, to the Government and to people's respect for government. There are people who have relatives serving in the Armed Forces, young men and women at risk. We all know that Cabinet offices in this country are part-time jobs, because one has a salary as a Member of Parliament and as a Cabinet Minister. That the Defence Secretary's job has been divided further, so that he answers Scottish Questions, is—I am trying to find a moderate word—deplorable."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 7 November 2007; Vol. 696, c. 120.]
	That is what a senior Labour figure said.
	It looks like the Government are increasingly dysfunctional and incoherent. The Prime Minister went to Iraq to announce troop reductions, which the Secretary of State knew nothing about until the last minute. Lord Drayson was so angry about being kept in the dark about DESO and the lack of support he gained in his conflict with the Treasury that he decided to quit and take up motor racing. Now it appears that the Secretary of State has lost his fight to stop the Treasury raiding the MOD core budget to pay for Iraq and Afghanistan. Perhaps it is therefore inevitable that people now believe that the Government have broken the military covenant. The think-tank Demos is hardly the sort of hysterical critic that was talked about earlier yet it said:
	"The Military Covenant—the contract between the nation and service personnel and their families who make personal sacrifices in return for fair treatment and commensurate terms and conditions of service—has been damaged almost beyond repair."
	The Gracious Speech will do nothing to dispel the widespread belief that defence is a second-order issue for this Prime Minister. There was reference in that speech to the UN, the G8 and the EU as part of our security architecture, but it did not even mention either the United States or NATO. The Prime Minister can tell all the newspapers he likes how much he loves America, but we will judge him on what he does. He has never had much interest in the military. As Lord Guthrie said:
	"I certainly viewed Brown as unsympathetic to defence. He didn't make much effort to educate himself about defence".
	Asked if he thought vital defence spending was approved by Tony Blair but blocked by his Chancellor, he replied that "that is exactly right". Perhaps that is the clearest indictment possible. Our forces deserve so much better.

Des Browne: I will take the hon. Gentleman's intervention in a moment, but before I do so I wish to contrast those figures with the Conservatives' record. Over the last five years under them, defence spending was cut by £500 million a year. I welcome debate on this issue, but it must be debate—rather than just a constant assertion from the Opposition Benches that more needs to be spent, without any conviction that they would be prepared to spend more. I ask the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) to clarify just how much his party would spend on defence. I cannot get an answer from him. Perhaps his party colleague, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex will be able to do so; the next time we debate this matter he might intervene on his Front-Bench colleague and ask him precisely how much he will spend on defence.
	The situation is unclear, and I am rapidly coming to the view that the Opposition are deliberately confusing the issue. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) said on the BBC "Newsnight" programme on 6 September 2007 that his party had made it crystal clear that if they were to take office tomorrow they would spend more on defence. He said that in terms. The problem is that the leader of his party, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), had already said in April 2007 on Webcameron—the comments are still there for people to see—
	"there is no magic pot of money we can dip into to spend a lot more on the Armed Services".
	The money is not there according to the hon. Gentleman's leader, but he says he will spend more.
	That is not the end of the confusion. In the last defence debate, the hon. Member for Woodspring criticised our defence spending but could not come up with a figure for how much defence spending should be, despite the fact that at the beginning of his speech he had suggested he had been ready to go into a general election a week beforehand. He was not in a position to give us a figure despite what he had suggested; he said we would need to wait for an election. Yesterday, when he was pressed on the issue on BBC South West, he also refused to give a straightforward answer. We cannot have such posturing. If the Opposition's policy is to spend more on defence, they must clearly tell us that that is the case; otherwise, we should look at what they do rather than at what they say—which is what they suggest we do in terms of others. What did they do when in government? They cut defence spending.

Mark Todd: The first question I need to answer is why I should take up the Minister's time so late at night on a subject that many would see as somewhat narrow. The answer is that a wider context of policy formation is involved that deserves wider currency. The Office of Fair Trading examined the issue of the reuse of public sector information earlier this year and that was followed by a valuable report, "The Power of Information", commissioned by the Cabinet Office. The Government have responded to both reports and, in addition, a review has been in progress of the future of trading funds, an issue to which I shall come later as it has a particular bearing on this subject matter.
	Public sector information is gathered and held for a wide variety of purposes and is critical to both the direct provision of services and our understanding of many aspects of modern Britain. It also earns money in its own right. The OFT worked out in its study that it earned some £590 million in direct income, but the economic impact of public sector information can be calculated in various ways. The Ordnance Survey has done a study that estimates that it alone underpins revenues of some £100 billion a year in the provision of mapping data to a wide variety of businesses which then utilise that data for their own purposes to generate revenue. Those examples, from just one part of the Government information business, give some idea of the scale of what we are talking about.
	If we consider the issue first on a strategic level, we see that as our society and public services grow more complex, more data are collected on the Government's behalf to manage that process and measure what we are attempting to achieve. Those data are increasingly stored in accessible formats. Instead of a lot of paper files of various kinds or the maps that people would recognise, digitised information is now commonly available across a wide range of Government activity. There are both more effective and ubiquitous tools that allow search, selection and compilation of information almost at will.
	The longevity of our public data collection is almost unique, and that produces generally high-quality data compared with that held in many other countries, as well as data sets with long historical potential use. We have some of the most powerful brands in their field in the information world, such as the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office. In our long period of empire, our understanding of the sea bed and navigational matters was critical, and the office continues to be a world leader in its field. Ordnance Survey was originally set up to provide information so that we could defend the country against an invasion by Napoleon, but over time it spread its wings much further, providing maps of our country to a standard that is envied around the world. The Met Office has set extremely high standards in the provision of weather data, which are commonly used well outside our country. We have built on a legacy of global reach, stable long-term governance, the self-confidence of the Victorian age and the spirit of innovation that founded those bodies.
	Increasing numbers of citizens seek information for themselves, and are prepared to compile it using their own resources; I have referred to the increasing availability of the tool sets that allow them to do that. Our relatively free communications marketplace has provided diverse channels for the distribution of the information. Other than any cost of the data, the entry barriers to an information business are now extremely low, promoting high levels of competition and innovation. Web technologies are evolving extremely rapidly, and that evolution will accelerate. Information business models will change rapidly as technologies and customer capabilities change over time. Of course, underpinning that, and of particular advantage to us, is the fact that the use of the English language remains a powerful asset in any information business.
	In sum, the UK is extremely well placed to generate businesses based on information; we hold significant competitive advantages. However, businesses that rely on the use of public sector information face significant barriers. Data are dispersed widely across central and local government. There is no common understanding of the value of data, or what defines their quality. There are no clear principles on how to share data to produce information within Government, let alone how to provide it to an external third party. To focus on geographical information, it would be valuable to have an agreement on how data can be shared by local government, which holds a significant proportion of localised information of various kinds. I have already mentioned Ordnance Survey. The Land Registry stores information on property transactions, the Post Office controls the use of postcodes, the Environment Agency maps issues such as flood risk, and there are many other kinds of information. However, there is no framework in which that can all work together. That, of course, hinders the development of public sector information, as well as the availability of much of the data in the private sector.
	There is no strategic framework in which to determine the various policy goals of considering the use of public sector information. There may be social value in allowing relatively ready access to data, in maximising the use of data collected in the public sector so that it performs multiple functions, in the recovery of costs, in generating a return on investment, in controlling the context of any reuse, in maintaining and developing data quality—I will come back to that point—and in fostering economic growth. Those are all perfectly legitimate policy goals, but the Government have not given those who hold data an adequate framework in which to determine which are the most important, and how to value them.
	There have been tentative attempts to establish ground rules on how to trade information, but the regulatory framework is neither resourced appropriately to address the diverse demands of the sector, nor empowered to enforce any guidance on fair trading. Without a governing strategy, decisions on the future governance, or even ownership, of some of the sector's key players, such as the trading funds, Ordnance Survey, the Hydrographic Office and the Met Office, are at best premature, and at worse risk damaging the development of the sector.
	To give an example, some of those businesses—and businesses they really are—would have significant value in the marketplace if they were ever disposed of. That would be an attractive prospect for a Government seeking to create an additional stream of money for other purposes. However, without a clear understanding of what the organisations were supposed to do and of how they might trade with others, such judgments would be dangerous and risk damaging the developing marketplace in public sector information and its reuse in the private sector.
	What do I want? First, I want a recognition of the possible scale of our lost opportunity. The OFT reckoned that another £600 million might be generated each year if public sector information were properly understood and sold, with the important qualification that only a relatively small proportion of that lay within the responsibility of the various trading funds that have already developed businesses in trading public sector information. For example, a large amount of that lost revenue lies in local government, in which the mere existence of much of the information is not known about and it is certainly not possible to make it available to third parties.
	The first requirement is a clear strategy with proper Government ownership. One of the difficulties is that a variety of Departments have a role to play; there is no clear, coherent leadership, as was evidenced in the preparations for responding to this debate. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform has been passed the parcel of answering at 10.15 or thereabouts, but to be honest the task could have gone to a number of other Ministers. Indeed, I was asked which Minister I thought it appropriate should answer the debate. There is a lack of clarity at that level that needs to be resolved.
	The strategy should at least address how the various policy goals that I set down should be balanced in any policy on pricing and rights control. It should explicitly set out the duties of key holders of public information in respect of accuracy and comprehensiveness. As an example I cite the annual report of Ordnance Survey, which has to
	"represent 99.6 per cent. of significant real-world features in the database within six months of completion."
	To give a picture of the difficulty of that task, I should say that that means any significant building development anywhere in the country. Even if it relates to a relatively remote location where the reuse of the information is of minimal value, the database has to be kept very accurately up to date. We need clear goals of that kind to be imposed on public sector bodies. The strategy should also address how investment could be maintained to ensure data quality and data development based on public service needs. It should ensure that our powerful brands, to which I have referred, continue to be associated with quality.
	I should like briefly to comment on the free our data campaign, which has suggested that the correct path is to distribute Government data virtually for free, or at cost. The difficulty of that model, which relies on the argument that that would generate substantial economic growth and tax revenues that would easily repay the amount lost in revenues directly associated with the sales, is that I am afraid it places a substantial reliance on any Government—not just this one—to continue to fund the development and maintenance of the quality of data in those organisations. At the moment, the organisations have revenue streams on which they can rely to invest into the future. Simply relying on the Treasury to bury its hand into its pocket periodically to develop data into the future is wishful thinking. That is not the path down which we should be treading.
	We also need a stronger Office of Public Sector Information able to enforce its decisions on market unfairness. The OFT report says:
	"Comparing the size of OPSI and the size of the sector it regulates with the established economic sector regulators"—
	not an entirely fair comparison, but the point is well made—
	"and the size of the market sectors they regulate, OPSI appears very small, with both fewer financial resources and fewer staff."
	If the sector is to be taken more seriously, it requires more specialist resources to tackle issues of pricing and market fairness raised by partners in developing new products. There needs to be a robust test of reasonableness in pricing policy that reflects direct costs and proportionate recharging of public service duties. To take the example of Ordnance Survey, perhaps 27 per cent. of the data that it holds on mapping in the UK genuinely has a commercial value for re-use. There are large parts of our country that relatively few people want to know about in great detail. That information is prepared for our own purposes in Government but does not have a substantial commercial value, so how does one factor the cost of collecting it, as part of Ordnance Survey's universal service, into the sale of products to third parties?
	My next objective is that we should have a modest investment—small sums go a long way; I have mentioned the low barriers to entry in this sector—in experiments focused on areas of Government data that are less well understood and where partnerships have been hard to establish. Local government data may be an example. There should also be a framework to ensure policy momentum, because this field changes extremely rapidly, and an international dimension—the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office and the Met Office, for example, are major international players—should be maintained in policy development.
	In 2000, there was a cross-cutting review of the knowledge economy that addressed this issue, at least in part. I am afraid that since then we have done relatively little. We cannot afford these lengthy periods of neglect. I have highlighted the lost revenues, the existing potential, and the competitive edge that we have in the UK. Let us take advantage of those things.

Gareth Thomas: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) on securing parliamentary time for this important debate. I welcome the opportunity to explore the issues that he has raised. I hope to give him some comfort by saying that there is more work being undertaken and more consideration in Government of those issues, albeit that there is unfinished work before us.
	Let me set out a little of the background to the Government's position. We welcomed the Office of Fair Trading's market study into the commercial use of public information, which, as my hon. Friend will recall, was published in December 2006. The study was thorough and identified a range of detailed and complex issues. The recommendations reflected a concern by some users of public sector information about the interaction between Government and markets, specifically the impact that the public sector can have on the way that markets work.
	Another issue mentioned in the OFT report was the estimated potential value of public sector information within the economy. The report concentrated on the commercial use of public sector information. As my hon. Friend acknowledged, that is a particularly important area in driving new, improved and innovative products in today's global market. Public sector information holders are often the only source for much of this raw data. Several PSIHs also compete with businesses in turning that raw information into value-added products and services. As my hon. Friend also alluded to, the OFT estimated that the value of public sector information to the UK's economy has the potential to increase from £590 million at the moment to more than £1 billion annually. As he also said, some experts believe that that figure could increase even further.
	The main conclusions of the OFT's study were that public sector information holders should make as much unrefined public sector information available as possible for commercial use and reuse; that businesses should have access to public sector information at the earliest point at which it is useful to them; and that where the public sector information holder is the only supplier, access to information should be provided on an equal basis for all businesses and the public sector holder information holder itself. The report also referred to the need to use proportionate cost-related pricing, and the need to account separately for costs and income from unrefined and refined information activities so that public sector information holders can demonstrate that they are providing and pricing information fairly and in a non-discriminatory manner.
	The last recommendation from the OFT's work that I shall highlight is the suggestion that the role of the Office of Public Sector Information be widened to monitor public sector information holders better, with improved enforcement and complaints procedures. The Government response welcomed the recommendations of the OFT study, and accepted the majority of them. As my hon. Friend may be aware, we noted in our response that some of the OFT's recommendations required further work by the Government.
	My hon. Friend alluded to the subject of trading funds. We believe that further work is required to consider the impact of proposed changes to data definitions and pricing policy, especially the impact on trading funds, in order to ensure that there are no adverse impacts on the ability to collect the information in the future or on the performance of trading funds in the fulfilment of essential public tasks, and to ensure that the proposed benefit is sufficient to justify the fiscal cost. He may be aware that such work is currently being undertaken and I expect that the initial research will be concluded later this year.
	As my hon. Friend indicated, the current model has been good for the taxpayer. Thanks to the trading funds' role in fulfilling public tasks, the Government create and own high quality information assets, such as mapping data, geological data, nautical charts and meteorological data, but the taxpayer only pays a fraction of the cost of their collection and dissemination.
	Given that the trading fund model is well established, the Government believe that we should take the time to look at the issues in some detail. We must ensure that high-quality data continue to be produced, and public sector tasks fulfilled, at the same time as opportunities for the wider economy are maximised. It would be entirely premature to abandon what has been a high-quality data production model without fully exploring the consequences. As my hon. Friend said, the UK has world-class agencies, including Ordnance Survey, the Met Office, the UK Hydrographic Office and the Land Registry. I shall take this opportunity on behalf of the Government to pay tribute to the professionalism, expertise and talent that is housed in each of those offices. We should be careful to avoid destabilising those excellent agencies.
	The Government have set out the principles within which trading funds should operate and how public sector bodies should charge for their services in the recently published document "Managing public money". Individual bodies are free to set their prices within the markets in which they operate, provided that they abide by those broad principles. The research that is under way may inform future policy in this area.

Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend makes the important point that the scheme is voluntary. However, it includes all the trading funds and it has helped to raise standards. For example, Ordnance Survey is now being much more transparent about its pricing and licensing terms. It has dropped the restriction to competitive activity in granting its licences and we are encouraging more public sector information holders to adopt and follow the fair trader scheme principles.
	OPSI also has a regulatory responsibility under the 2005 regulations to consider complaints relating to reuse. That complaints process provides a low-cost alternative to taking action through the courts. It also provides a level of assurance to reusers that their concerns will be investigated transparently and openly.
	A series of practical and innovative steps have been taken by OPSI to ensure that the importance of the regulations is recognised, understood and put into practice. When the Office of Fair Trading perceived or identified potential competition issues, the OFT, OPSI and the trading funds have worked to resolve them. Overall, the regulatory regime is working but we are looking to improve and will take on board the recommendations made by the OFT.
	My hon. Friend referred to the power of information review, which was published on 7 June of this year. That review overlapped somewhat with the OFT study and so Departments and agencies worked closely together to ensure that the responses to both were published simultaneously and were consistent. I pay tribute to the work of the power of information review, which was led by Ed Mayo, chief executive of the National Consumer Council, and Tom Steinberg, director and founder of mySociety. I suspect that in the time that I have left I will not be able to do justice to the quality of the work produced by Mr. Mayo and Mr. Steinberg. They produced an important piece of work, and the Government welcomed their review and accepted some 13 of their 15 recommendations.
	I will write to my hon. Friend to address a number of the other more general questions that he raised and to give him some additional comfort on the time scale. In conclusion, I am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to set out a little of the background to the Government's work in this area.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.